Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the councils of the church : from the original documents"

See other formats 


Jl 




.- 



A HISTORY 



OF 



THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS. 








1 IUNTED BY MURRAY AND GILB, 



FOtt 



T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 

LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
DUBLIN, . . . , JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. 
NEW YORK, . . . C. SCR1BNER AND CO. 



A HISTOEY 



OF 



THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS, 



EBOM THE OBIGINAL DOCUMENTS, 



TO THE CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL OF WCMA, 



A.D. 325. 



BY THE 



RIGHT REV. CHARLES JOSEPH HEFELE, D.D., 

BISHOP OF ROTTENBURG, 
FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TUBINGEN. 



fram % femait, mti (BM 
BY WILLIAM B. C L A E K, M.A., 

PREBENDARY OF WELLS AND VICAR OF TAUNTON. 



SECOND EDITION, REVISED. 



EDHTBUEGH: 

T. & T. CLABK, 38, GEOBGE 

MDCCCLXXII. 




>~ 

t; 5 

& 







APR 1 5 1954 



PREFACE. 



" TVTO portion of Church History has been so much ne- 
JL l glected in recent times as the History of the Councils. 
With the exception of a few monographs on particular synods, 
nothing of importance has appeared on this subject in our 
days. It is high time that this state of things should be altered, 
and altered not by a mere adaptation of old materials, but by 
a treatment of the subject suited to the wants of the present 
day. This has become less difficult, inasmuch as new docu 
ments have been brought to light, and we live in an age 
when many errors have been abandoned, many prejudices 
have been put on one side, great progress has been made in 
critical studies, and a deeper insight into the development of 
the Christian Church has undoubtedly been gained. 

" I have been employed for a good many years in the com 
position of a History of the Councils of the Church, which 
should be of a comprehensive character, and founded upon 
original documents. I may affirm that I have spared no 
pains to secure accuracy, and have done my best to consult 
all the literature which bears upon the subject." 

The hopes which Dr. Hefele thus expressed in his preface 
to the first volume of his History have been abundantly ful 
filled. He has not only supplied an acknowledged want in his 
own country in a manner which leaves little to desire, but 
he has brought within the reach of all German scholars an 
amount of information in connection with the ancient councils 
which is to be found only in part even in those large collec 
tions of Hardouin and Mansi, which are seldom to be met 
with in private libraries. It is to be hoped that the interest 



VI PREFACE. 

manifested in that portion of his work which is translated in 
this volume may induce the publishers to carry it forward at 
least to the close of the fourth (Ecumenical Council. 

The Translator was at first in doubt as to the best form in 
which to present this History to the English public, whether 
in the form of a paraphrase, in which case it must have been 
almost an original work, or as a simple translation. Various 
considerations induced him to adopt the latter course. There 
was little difficulty in doing so, as Dr. Hefele s German style, 
unlike that of many of his Protestant fellow-countrymen, is 
generally lucid and intelligible. The Editor, when he first 
undertook the work of preparing the History for English 
readers, intended to add a number of notes from writers who 
regard the subject from a different point of view. This he 
afterwards found to be unnecessary, and the additional notes 
are accordingly very few. Dr. Hefele is so fair in the state 
ment of facts, that every reader may very easily draw his 
conclusions for himself. 

All possible care has been taken to make the references 
and quotations correct. It is almost certain, however, that 
slight mistakes may still be found in these pages ; and the 
Editor will gratefully receive any corrections which may be 
forwarded to him, and make use of them should a second 
edition of the work be called for. 

Since writing the above, the Editor has received a very 
kind letter from the Author, which he desires to acknowledge 
the more gratefully, from the fact that he had delayed to 
write to Dr. Hefele until after the work of translation was 
considerably advanced. This delay was not, however, volun 
tary. At the time when the translation was begun, the 
Bishop had gone to Rome to take part in the Vatican 
Council, and it was felt that at such a time it would be 
unsuitable to address him. After the close of the Council, 
the Editor was himself engaged in various ways ; but he has 
now the satisfaction of making various corrections which 
have been most kindly forwarded to him by the Author. 



PREFACE. Vll 

Most of these have been inserted in their proper place ; 
but the following correction is of so much importance, 
that it has been thought better to introduce it here. At 
p. 50, line 4, the Author wishes the following passage to 
be substituted for that which previously appeared : Erase 
from "Martin v." (line 4) to " a general theory" (line 15), 
and substitute : " When, therefore, Martin v. declared at 
the last session of the Council of Constance, that he ap 
proved and ratified all that had been decreed by the present 
holy (Ecumenical Council of Constance in materiis fidei con- 
ciliariter (that is, by the whole Council, and not merely by 
individual nations), this approval had immediate reference 
only to the special matter of Ealkenberg (see vol. vii. p. 368 
of Hefele s Conciliengeschiclite) : he said nothing at all on the 
decrees respecting the superiority of an oecumenical council to 
the Pope; and if this Pope, in the bull of the 22d February 
1418, required of every one the recognition of the Council 
of Constance as being oecumenical, and that all which it had 
decreed in favorem fidei et salutem animarum must be re 
ceived and believed (vol. vii. p. 347), he evidently avoided 
giving it a complete and universal confirmation. His words, 
which we have quoted above, have a decidedly restrictive 
character. He indicated by them that he excluded some of 
the decrees of the Council from his approbation (evidently 
those referring to the superiority of the Council) ; but for 
the sake of peace, he did not choose to express himself more 
clearly. His successor, Eugenius iv., declared himself with 
greater distinctness in 1446, when he accepted the whole 
Council of Constance, and all its decrees, absqiie tamen prceju- 
dicio juris, dignitatis, et prceeminentice sedis apostolicce. There 
can be no question that by this he intended to exclude from 
his approbation the decrees of Constance respecting the supe 
riority of an oecumenical synod to the Pope." 

The Editor has to thank several friends for directing his 

attention to a few mistakes in the first edition. Should 

any be still detected in the present, he will be grateful 
for their being pointed out. W. E. C. 



CONTENTS. 



INTEODUCTIOK 

PAG 3 

SEC. 1. Origin and Authority of Councils, .... 1 

,, 2. Different Kinds of Synods, ..... 2 

,, 3. By whom are Synods convoked, .... 6 

,, 4. Members of Councils, . . . . . .16 

,, 5. The Presidency of Councils, . . . . .27 

,, 6. Confirmation of the Decrees of the Councils, . . .42 

,, 7. Relation of the Pope to the (Ecumenical Council, . . 49 

,, 8. Infallibility of (Ecumenical Councils, . . . .52 

,, 9. Appeal from the Pope to an (Ecumenical Council, . . 54 

,, 10. Number of the (Ecumenical Councils, . . . .55 

11. Customs observed in (Ecumenical Councils with respect to Sig 
natures, Precedence, Manner of Voting, etc., . . 64 

12. Histories of the Councils, ..... 67 



BOOK L 

ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS. 

CHAPTER I. 

COUNCILS OF THE FIEST TWO CENTURIES. 

SEC. 1. Synods relative to Montanism, ..... 77 
,, 2. Synods concerning the Feast of Easter, . .80 

,, 3. Doubtful Synods of the Second Century, . . . 83 



x CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER II. 

SYNODS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 

r A OK 
SEC. 4. First Half of the Third Century, . . . .86 

,, 5. First Synods at Carthage and Rome, on account of Novatianism 

and the Lapsi (251), ...... 93 

>, 6. Synods relative to the Baptism of Heretics (255-256), . . 98 

7. Synod of Narbonne (255-260), . . . . .116 

,, 8. Synods at Arsinb e and Rome (255-260), . . . 117 

,, 9. Three Synods at Antioch on account of Paul of Samosata (264- 

269), ........ 118 

CHAPTER III. 

THE SYNODS OF THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS OF THE FOURTH 

CENTURY. 

SEC. 10. Pretended Synod of Sinuessa (303), .... 127 

11. Synod of Cirta (305), . . . . . .128 

,, 12. Synod of Alexandria (306), ..... 130 

,, 13. Synod of Elvira (305 or 306), . . . . .131 

,, 14. Origin of the Schism of the Donatists, and the first Synods held 

on this account in 312 and 313, . . . .172 

,, 15. Synod of Aries in Gaul (314), ..... 180 

,, 16. Synod of Ancyra in 314, ..... 199 

,, 17. Synod of Neocsesarea (314-325), .... 222 



BOOK II. 

THE FIRST (ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NIGfflA, A.D. 325. 

CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

SEC. 18. Doctrine of the Logos prior to Arianism, . . . 231 

,, 19. Arms, ........ 239 

,, 20. Synod of Alexandria in 320, and its Consequences, . . 247 

,, 21. Arius obliged to leave Alexandria. His Letters and his Thalia, 252 

,, 22. Synod in Bithyriia. Intervention of the Emperor Constan tine, 258 



CONTENTS. xi 

CHAPTER II. 

THE DISCUSSIONS AT NIC^EA. 

PAOB 

SEC. 23. Synodal Acts, ....... 262 

,, 24. The Convocation by the Emperor, .... 268 

,, 25. Number of the Members of the Council, . . . 270 
,, 26. Date of the Synod, . . . . . .274 

,, 27. The Disputations, ...... 277 

,, 28. Arrival of the Emperor Solemn Opening of the Council Pre 
sidency, ....... 279 

., 29. Mutual Complaints of the Bishops, .... 282 

,, 30. Manner of Deliberation, ..... 282 

,, 31. Paphnutius and Spiridion, ..... 284 

., 32. Debates with the Eusebians The opaovrtas, . . . 285 

,, 33. Creed of Eusebius of Csesarea, ..... 288 

34. The Nicene Creed, ...... 293 

35. The Signatures, ....... 296 

,, 36. Measures taken by the Emperor against the Arians, . . 297 

,, 37. Decision of the Easter Question, .... 298 

,, 38. The later Quartodecimans, ..... 332 

,, 39. The Audians, ....... 334 

,, 40. Decision on the subject of the Meletian Schism, . . 341 

,, 41. Number of the Nicene Canons, ..... 355 

,, 42. Contents of the Nicene Canons, ..... 375 

,, 43. Paphnutius and the projected Law of Celibacy, . . 435 

,, 44. Conclusion Unpublished Documents, . . . 439 

APPENDIX. 

The so-called Apostolic Canons, ...... 4-19 

INDEX, ......... 493 



HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS, 



INTEODUCTION. 

SEC. 1. Origin and Authority of Councils. 

THE two synonymous expressions, concilium and a- wo 
signify primarily any kind of assembly, even a secular 
one ; but in the more restricted sense of a Church assembly, 
i.e. of a regularly convoked meeting of the rulers of the 
Church for the discussion and decision of ecclesiastical busi 
ness, the word concilium is found for the first time in Ter- 
tullian, 1 and evvoSos in the Apostolical Canons; 12 while the 
Apostolical Constitutions 3 designate even the ordinary meetings 
of Christians for divine service by the name of avvoSos.- 

That the origin of councils is derived from the Apostolic 
Synod held at Jerusalem about the year 52, 4 is undoubted ; but 
theologians are not agreed as to whether they were instituted 
by divine or by human authority. The true answer to this 
question is as follows : They are an apostolical institution ; but 
the apostles, when they instituted them, acted under the com 
mission which they received from Christ, otherwise they could 
not have published the decisions of their synod with the 
words, " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." They 
must have been convinced that the Lord of the Church had 
promised and had granted His Spirit to the assemblies of the 
Church. 

Later synods have acted and spoken in the same conviction, 
that the Holy Ghost governed the assemblies of the Church ; 
and Cyprian in his time wrote, 5 in the name of the Council 

1 De Jejim. c. 13. 2 C. 36, alias 37 or 08. 3 L. v. c. 20. 

4 Acts xv. 6 Ep. 54. 

A 



2 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

over which he presided, A.D. 252, to Pope Cornelius : " It 
seemed good to us, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit " 
(Placuit nobis, Sancto Spiritu suggerente). To the same effect 
the Synod of Aries, -A.D. 314, expressed itself : "It seemed 
good, therefore, in the presence of the Holy Spirit and His 
angels : (Placuit ergo, prcesente Spiritu Sancto et angelis ejus : 
Hardouin, Collect Condi, t. i. p. 262). And it was this con 
viction, which was so universal, that led the Emperor Con- 
stantine the Great to call the decree of the Synod of Aries 
a heavenly judgment (cwleste judicium) ; and he added, that the 
judgment of the priests ought to be so received as though the 
Lord Himself sat and judged (sacerdotum judicium ita dcbct 
Jiaberi, ac si ipse DOMINUS residens judicet}. Twenty years 
later he again publicly expressed the same belief, at the close 
of the first oecumenical council at Mcsea, in these words : 
" What seemed good to the three hundred holy bishops (that 
is, the members of the Mcene Synod) is no otherwise to be 
thought of than as the judgment of the only Son of God" 
(Quod trecentis sanctis episcopis visum est, non cst aliud putan- 
dum, quam solius Filii Dei sententia). 1 In perfect agreement 
with this are the testimonies of all the ancient Fathers, Greek 
as well as Latin, of Athanasius as of Augustine and Gregory 
the Great, the latter of whom goes so far as to compare the 
authority of the first four general councils with the importance 
of the four holy Gospels. 2 

The earliest synods known to us were held about the middle 
of the second Christian century in Asia Minor: they were 
occasioned by the rise of Montanism. It is, however, not 
improbable that such assemblies were held earlier in the Greek 
Church, perhaps on account of the Gnostics, inasmuch as the 
Greeks from the earliest times had more inclination, and also 
greater need, for synods, than those of the Western Church. 

SEC. 2. Different kinds of Synods. 

It has been customary, in dealing with ecclesiastical statis 
tics, to divide the councils into four classes ; but they may 
be more accurately divided into eight, since there have actually 
been ecclesiastical assemblies of the kinds described under 
i Hard. i. 447. 2 Lib. i. Ep. 25. 



INTRODUCTION. 3 

the following numbers, two, five, seven, and eight. Foremost 
of all stand, 

1. The Universal or (Ecumenical Councils, at which the 
bishops and other privileged persons 1 from all the ecclesias 
tical provinces of the world 2 are summoned to be present 
under the presidency of the Pope or his legates, and are 
bound to attend, unless in case of reasonable hindrance ; and 
whose decisions are then received by the whole Church, and 
have the force of law for all the faithful. Hence it is clear 
that a council may possibly be intended to be oecumenical, 
and be summoned as such, and yet not receive the rank of an 
oecumenical synod, as when its progress is stopped, or when 
it does not accomplish its object, or becomes divided, and the 
like ; and for such reasons does not receive the approval of 
the whole Church, and particularly of the Pope. So it was 
with the so-called Latrocinium or Eobber-Synod at Ephesus, 
A.D. 449. The bishops of all provinces were summoned, and 
the papal legates were present ; but violence was used which 
prevented free discussion, so that error prevailed : and this 
Synod, instead of being recorded with honour, is marked with 
a brand on the page of history. 

2. The second rank is given to General Councils or Synods 
of the Latin or Greek Church, at which were present the 
bishops and other privileged persons either of the whole Latin 
or of the whole Greek Church, and thus only the representa 
tives of one-half of the whole Church. Thus, in the first in 
stance, the Synod held at Constantinople, A.D. 381, was only 
a Greek or Eastern general council, at which were present 
all the four Patriarchs of the East, those of Constantinople, 
of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, with many other 
metropolitans and bishops. As, however, this Synod was 
afterwards received by the West, it acquired the rank of an 
oecumenical council. 

3. When the bishops of only one patriarchate or primacy 
(i.e. of a diocese, in the ancient sense of the word), or of only 

1 Of these, more hereafter. 

2 o lxovftivn. Not merely of the Roman Empire, as Spittler supposed (Complete 
Works, viii. p. 175), although in the ancient Church the boundaries of the 
Church very nearly coincided with those of the Roman Empire. 



4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

one kingdom or nation, assembled under the presidency of the 
patriarch, or primate, or first metropolitan, then we have re 
spectively a national, or patriarchal, or primatial council, 
which frequently received the name of universal or plenary 
(universale or plenarium)}- The bishops of the Latin Church 
in Africa, for instance, metropolitans and suffragans, often as 
sembled in synods of this kind under the Primate of Carthage; 
and in the same way the archbishops and bishops of all Spain 
under their primate, the Archbishop of Toledo. In still earlier 
times, the metropolitans and bishops of Syria assembled under 
the Archbishop of Antioch, their supreme metropolitan, after 
wards called by the name of Patriarch. 

4. A Provincial Synod is considerably smaller, and is formed 
by the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province, with his 
suffragan bishops and other privileged persons. 

5. Intermediate between the third and fourth classes are 
those synods, which are not uncommon in the history of the 
Church, in which the bishops of several contiguous ecclesias 
tical provinces united for the discussion of subjects of common 
interest. They may be called the Councils of several United 
Provinces ; and they rank lower than the national or primatial 
synod in this respect, that it is not the complete provinces of 
a nation or of a primacy which are represented in them. 

6. By Diocesan Synods we understand those ecclesiastical 
assemblies which the bishop holds with his clergy, and over 
which he presides either personally or by his vicar-general. 

7. Councils of a peculiar and even abnormal character, and 
known as cruvo^oi evfy^ovo-ai, (Synods of Residents), were often 
held at Constantinople, when the Patriarch not unfrequently 
assembled around him bishops who happened to be staying 
(eVc^owTe?) at Constantinople on private or other business, 
from provinces and patriarchates the most widely separated, 
for the discussion of important subjects, particularly for the 
decision of contests between the bishops themselves. 2 We 
shall have occasion to adduce more on this subject when we 

1 Cf. an article by the author in the Tubinger Theolog. Quartalsclir ift, 1852, 

pt. iii. p. 406. 

2 Cf. the treatise of Quesnel, De Vita, etc., 8. LeonisM., Op, S. Leonis, t. ii, 

p. 521 ff. (ed. Ballerini). 



INTRODUCTION. 5 

come to discuss the ninth and twenty-eighth canons of 
Chalcedon. 

8. Last of all, there appear in history not a few Mixed 
Councils (concilia mixta) ; assemblies in which the ecclesiastical 
and civil rulers of a kingdom meet together in order to take 
counsel on the affairs of Church and State. "We come across 
them particularly in the beginning of the middle ages, not 
unfrequently in France, in Germany, in England, in Spain, 
and in Italy. Of this character are the fourth to the seventh 
Synods of Toledo, many synods held under Pepin, under 
Charles the Great [Charlemagne] and his successors, among 
others the Synod of Mainz, A.D. 852, and that held in the 
year 876 in the Palatium apud Ticinum, at which the elec 
tion of Charles the Fat was approved by the bishops and 
princes of Italy. 1 We shall further on meet with several 
English mixed councils, at which even abbesses were present. 
All such assemblies were naturally summoned by the King, 
who presided and brought forward the points which had to 
be discussed. The discussion was either carried on in common, 
or the clergy and the nobility separated, and formed different 
chambers, a chamber of nobles, and a chamber of bishops, 
the latter discussing only ecclesiastical questions. The de 
cisions were often promulgated in the form of royal decrees. 2 

Six grounds for the convocation of great councils, particu 
larly oecumenical councils, are generally enumerated : 

1. When a dangerous heresy or schism has arisen. 

2. When two Popes oppose each other, and it is doubtful 
which is the true one. 

3. When the question is, whether to decide upon some 
great and universal undertaking against the enemies of the 
Christian name. 

4. When the Pope is suspected of heresy or of other 
serious faults. 

5. When the cardinals have been unable or unwilling to 
undertake the election of a Pope. 

6. When it is a question of the reformation of the Church, 
in its head and members. 

1 Hard. vi. 169. 

2 Cf. Salmon, Traiti de V Etude des Conciles, p. 851 flL, Paris 1726. 



6 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Besides these, there may be many other kinds of reasons 
for the convocation of smaller synods ; but all must have 
reference to the one supreme aim of all councils "the pro 
motion of the well-being of the Church through the mutual 
consultation of its pastors." In the ancient Church there 
were very many synods assembled, in order to resolve the 
contests of the bishops with one another, and to examine 
the charges brought against some of their number. 

SEC. 3. By wJiom are Synods convoked ? 

If it is asked who convokes councils, there can be no con 
troversy with regard to the greatest number of the eight kinds 
just specified. It is undoubted, that the ecclesiastical head of 
the diocese, the bishop, has to summon the diocesan synod ; 
the ecclesiastical head of the province, the metropolitan, the 
provincial synod ; the ecclesiastical head of a nation, a patri 
archate, etc., the patriarch or primate, either at his own in 
stance or at the wish of another, as of the sovereign, calls a 
national or primatial synod. It is equally clear, that when 
several provinces meet in a combined synod, the right of con 
vocation belongs to the most distinguished among the metro 
politans who meet. At the erwoSo? evSrjfjiovo-a, it was, of 
course, naturally exercised by the Bishop of Constantinople. 
Consequently, and from the very nature of the case, the sum 
mons to an oecumenical council must go forth from the oecu 
menical head of the Church, the Pope ; except in the case, 
which is hardly an exception, in which, instead of the Pope, 
the temporal protector of the Church, the Emperor, with the 
previous or subsequent approval and consent of the Pope, 
summons a council of this kind. The case is similar with 
the other synods, particularly national synods. In the case 
of these, too, the temporal protector of the Church has occa 
sionally issued the summons instead of the ecclesiastical ruler ; 
and this not merely in ancient times in the Grseco-Roman 
Church, but also later in the German and Roman States. 
Thus, e.g., Constantine the Great convoked the Synod of Aries 
in 314, and Theodosius the Great the Svnod of Constan- 

* */ 

tinople (already mentioned) in 381, in concert with the four 
Eastern patriarchs ; Childebert, king of the Eranks, a national 



INTRODUCTION. 7 

synod at Orleans in the year 549 j 1 and Charles the Great, 
in the year 794, the great Synod of Frankfurt. 2 Even the 
Arian sovereign, Theodoric the Great, at the beginning of the 
sixth century, gave orders for the discontinuance of several 
orthodox synods at Eome. Further examples are noted by 
Hardouin. 3 

Among those councils which were called by the emperors, 
the latter undertook many kinds of expenses, particularly the 
expense of travelling incurred by the numerous bishops, for 
whom they ordered houses and carriages to be put at their 
disposal at the public expense. This was done by Constan- 
tine the Great at the calling of the Synods of Aries and 
Nicsea. They also provided for the entertainment of the 
bishops during the sitting of those .assemblies. 4 At the later 
councils those of Florence and Trent, for example many 
of the expenses were borne by the Popes, the Christian 
princes, and the cities in which the synods were held. 

Bellarmin endeavoured to prove, 5 that it was formally 
recognised in the ancient Church that the calling of synods 
belonged to the hierarchical chiefs, and the summoning of 
oecumenical councils in particular to the Pope ; but several 
of the passages which he adduces in proof are from the 
Pseudo-Isidore, and therefore destitute of all importance, while 
others rest upon an incorrect explanation of the words re 
ferred to. Thus, Bellarmin appeals above all to the legates 
of Leo I., who at the fourth (Ecumenical Council that of 
Chalcedon in 451 had demanded the deposition of the 
Patriarch Dioscurus of Alexandria, because he had ventured 
to call an oecumenical council without permission from Eome. 
Their words are : crvvoSov eVoX/^ere Tro^erat eVtTpoTr?} ? <H%a 
TOV aTToo-To XiKov 0p6vov. Q In their obvious meaning, these 
words bear the sense indicated, and they are generally so ex 
plained. As, however, Pope Leo the Great had, by sending 
his legates, recognised and confirmed the summoning of the 

1 Hard. ii. 1443. 2 Hard. iv. 882. 

3 Hard. xi. 1078. 

4 Euseb. Eccl Hist. x. 5, p. 392, ed. Mog. ; De Vita Const, iv. 6, 9. 

5 Disputationes, t. i. 1. i. c. 12. 

6 Hard. Coll Cone. t. ii. p. 68 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 581. 



8 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Latrocinium, 1 or Robber- Synod for it is to this that the 
reference is made we are under the necessity of under 
standing that Dioscurus was accused at Chalcedon of thrust 
ing the papal legates into the background, and taking the 
direction and presidency of the Council into his own hands. 
This is the way in which it is understood by the Ballerini 2 
and by Arendt. 3 At the same time, it must not be over 
looked that the general nature of the expression of which 
the papal legates made choice at Chalcedon,, certainly in 
volves the other side of the papal claim, and implies not 
only the right to preside over synods, but to convoke them. 

Bellarmin appeals further to the seventh (Ecumenical 
Council, which in its sixth session rejected the iconoclastic 
Synod of 754, and refused to recognise it as oecumenical, for 
this very reason, that the summons for its assembling did not 
go forth from the Pope. What the Synod does in fact say, 
however, is, that " this Synod had not the Eoman Pope as its 
co-operator " (OVK ecr^e crvvepyov TOV TWV Pco/Adic/ov iraTrav). 4 
There is nothing said in particular of the Pope s taking part 
or not in the summoning of the Synod. 

On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that, according to 
Socrates, 5 Julius I, even in his time, about the year 341, ex 
pressed the opinion that it was an ecclesiastical canon, 
Trapa ryvco/jLrjv TOV eTTHTKOTrov Pa)fjirj<j Kavovi^iv ra? 
and there can be no doubt, if these words are impartially con 
sidered, that they mean that it was " not lawful to pass canons 
of universal obligation at synods without the consent of the 
Bishop of Borne." The question which is here to be decided, 
however, is this : Who, as a matter of fact, called or co-ope 
rated in calling the oecumenical synods ? And the answer 
is : The first eight oecumenical synods were convoked by the 
Emperors, all later ones by the Popes ; but even in the case of 
the early synods, there is a certain participation of the Pope 

1 See, for an account of this Synod, Milman, Lat. Christianity, vol. i. p. 190. 

ED. 

2 8. Leonis, Opp. t. ii. p. 460, not. 15. 

3 Monographic ub. P. Leo d. Gr. S. 270. 

4 Hard. iv. 327. 

5 Hist. Eccl. ii. 17. 



INTRODUCTION. 9 

in convoking them, which in individual cases is more or less 
clearly seen. 

1. The fact that the summons to the first (Ecumenical 
Synod proceeded from the Emperor Constantine the Great, 
cannot be disputed. 1 As, however, none of the letters have 
come down to us, we cannot tell whether they referred to any 
consultation with the Pope. On the other hand, it is un 
deniable that the sixth (Ecumenical Synod in 680 expressly 
asserted 2 that the Synod of Mcsea was summoned by the 
Emperor and Pope Sylvester (Ktovo-Tavrivos 6 aeicre(3ecrTaTo$ 

6 doiBi/AOS Tr,v ev NiKala fjie<yd\r)v re KCU Trepl- 
o-vve\6yov crvvo&ov). 3 The same is stated in the 
ancient Liber Pontificates 4 attributed to Pope Damasus ; and if 
this authority be considered of slight value, the importance of 
the former must be admitted. Had the sixth (Ecumenical 
Council been held in the West, or at Eome itself, its testi 
mony might perhaps seem partial; but as it took place at 
Constantinople, and at a time when the bishops of that place 
had already appeared as rivals of the Bishop of Eome, and 
moreover the Greeks formed by far the greater number present 
at the Synod, their testimony for Eome must be regarded as 
of great importance. Hence even Eufinus, in his continua 
tion of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, 5 says that the 
Emperor summoned the Synod of Nicssa at the suggestion of 
the priests (ex sententia sacerdotum) ; and certainly, if several 
bishops were consulted on the subject, among them must 
have been the chief of them all, the Bishop of Eome. 

2. With regard to the second (Ecumenical Synod, it is com 
monly asserted, 6 that the bishops who composed it themselves 
declared that they were assembled at Constantinople in ac 
cordance with a letter of Pope Damasus to the Emperor Theo- 
dosius the Great. 7 But the document which has been relied 

1 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 6. 

2 This was more than 300 years after, and we know not on what authority 
the statement was made. ED. 

3 Hard. iii. 1417. 

4 Cf. an article "by Dr. Hefele in the Tilling er Quartalschrift, 1845, S. 320 ff. 

5 Lib. i. c. i. 

Even by Hefele himself, in Aschbach s Kirchenlexicon, Bd. 2, S. 161. 
7 Theodoret : Hist. Bed. v. 9. 



10 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

upon as authority, refers not to the Synod of the year 381, 
the second oecumenical, but, as we shall show further on in 
the history of this Council, to the Synod of the year 382, 1 
which actually did meet in accordance with the wish of Pope 
Damasus and the Western Synod at Aquileia, but was not 
oecumenical. It is without effect, moreover, that Baronius 
appeals to the sixth (Ecumenical Council to prove that Pope 
Damasus had a part in the calling of the second (Ecumenical 
Synod. For what the Council says is this : "When Macedonius 
spread abroad a false doctrine respecting the Holy Spirit, 
Theodosius and Damasus immediately opposed him, and Gre 
gory of Nazianzus and Nectarius (his successor in the See of 
Constantinople) assembled a synod in this royal city." This 
passage is obviously too vague and indefinite to afford grounds 
for concluding that Pope Damasus co-operated in the sum 
moning of the Synod. ISTay more, the words, "Gregory of 
Nazianzus and Nectarius assembled a synod," rather exclude 
than include the co-operation of Damasus. Besides, it should 
not be forgotten that the Synod in question, held A.D. 381, as 
we have already remarked, was not originally regarded as 
oecumenical, and obtained this rank at a later period on its 
being received by the West. It was summoned as a general 
council of the Greek or Eastern Church ; and if the Pope had 
no share in convoking it, no inference can be drawn from 
this fact unfavourable to his claim to summon oecumenical 
synods. 

3. The third (Ecumenical Council at Ephesus, in the year 
431, was summoned, as the Acts prove, 3 by the Emperor 
Theodosius, in union with his Western colleague Valentinian 
in. It is clear, however, that the Pope Celestine I. concurred, 
from his letter to Theodosius, dated May 15, 431, in which 
he says that he cannot personally be present at the Synod, but 
will send his representatives. 4 Still more distinct is his letter 
to the Council itself, dated May 8, 431, in which he sets 
before the assembled bishops their duty to protect the orthodox 

1 Cf. the notes of Yalesius to Tlieodoret ; Hist. Eccl v. 9. 

2 Hard. iii. p. 1419. 

3 Mansi, t. iv. p. 1111 ; Hard. t. i. p. 1343. 

4 Mansi, iv. 1291 ; Hard. i. 1473. 



INTRODUCTION. 1 1 

faith, expresses his expectation that they will agree to the 
sentence which he has already pronounced upon Nestorius, 
and adds that he has sent his legates, in order that they may 
give effect to this sentence at Ephesus. 1 The members of 
the Synod themselves saw and acknowledged that there was 
here not merely an assent to the convocation of the Synod, 
but also directions for their guidance, inasmuch as they de 
clare, in their most solemn act, the sentence of condemnation 
against JSTestorius : " Compelled by the canons and by the 
letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, 
Bishop of Borne, we have come to this sad sentence of con 
demnation upon Nestorius." They expressed the same when 
they said that " the letter of the Apostolic See (to Cyril, which 
he had communicated to the Synod of Ephesus) had already 
set forth the sentence and rule to be followed (^rr^ov /cal 
rvTTov) in the case of Nestorras ; and they, the assembled 
bishops, had, in accordance with this judgment, followed up 
this rule." 3 It is herein clearly acknowledged that the Pope 
had not simply, like other bishops, so to speak, passively 
agreed to the convocation of the Synod by the Emperor, but 
had actively prescribed to the Synod rules for their guidance ; 
and had thus, not in the literal sense, but in a sense higher 
and more real, called them to their work. 

4. The manner in which the fourth (Ecumenical Synod at 
Chalcedon, A.D. 451, met together, we learn from several letters 
of Pope Leo I, and of the Emperors Theodosius n. and Mar- 
cian. Immediately after the end of the unhappy Piobber- 
Synod, Pope Leo requested the Emperor Theodosius n. (October 
13, 449) to bring together a greater council, assembled from 
all parts of the world, which might best meet in Italy. 4 He 
repeated this request at Christmas in the same year, 5 and be 
sought the Emperor of the "West also, Yalentinian in., together 
with his wife and mother, to support his request at the Byzan 
tine Court. 6 Leo renewed his petition on the 16th of July 
450, but at the same time expressed the opinion that the 

1 Mansi, I.e. p. 1283 ; Hard. p. 1467. 

2 Mansi, I.e. p. 1226 ; Hard. I.e. p. 1431. 3 Hard. I.e. p. 1472. 
4 Leo. Ep. 44 (ed. Ballerini, t. i. p. 910). 5 Ep. 54. 

6 Epp. 55-58. 



12 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Council would not be necessary, if the bishops without it 
would subscribe an orthodox confession of faith. 1 About this 
time Theodosius n. died, and was succeeded by his sister S. 
Pulcheria and her husband Marcian. Both of them intimated 
immediately to the Pope their disposition to call the Synod 
which had been desired, and Marcian in particular asked the 
Pope to write and inform him whether he would attend per 
sonally or by legates, so that the necessary invitations might 
be issued to the Eastern bishops. 2 But Pope Leo now wished 
at least for a postponement of the Council. He went even so 
far as to say that it was no longer necessary ; a change in his 
views which has often been made a ground of reproach to 
him, but which will be thoroughly discussed and justified at 
the proper place in this History of the Councils. We will only 
point out, at present, that what Leo had mentioned in his 
69th letter, during the lifetime of Theodosius II., as a reason 
for dispensing with the Council, had actually taken place 
under Marcian and, Pulcheria, inasmuch as nearly all the 
bishops who had taken part in the Robber-Synod had re 
pented of their error, and in conjunction with their orthodox 
colleagues had signed the epistola dogmatica of Leo to Flavian, 
which was, in the highest sense, an orthodox confession of 
faith. Moreover, the incursions of the Huns in the West had 
made it then impossible for the Latin bishops to leave their 
homes in any great number, and to travel to the distant 
Chalcedon; whilst Leo naturally wished, in the interest of 
orthodoxy, that many of the Latins should be present at the 
Synod. Other motives contributed to the same desire ; among 
these the fear, which the result proved to be well grounded, 
that the Synod might be used for the purpose of altering the 
hierarchical position of the Bishop of Constantinople. As, 
however, the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the 
Synod, the Pope gave his consent to its assembling, appointed 
legates, and wrote to the Synod describing their duties and 
business. 3 And thus he could say with justice, in his later 
epistle, addressed to the bishops assembled at Chalcedon, 4 
that the Council was assembled "by the command of the 

1 Ep. 69. 2 Epp. 73 and 76, among those of S. Leo. 

3 Epp. 89-95. * Ep. 114. 



INTRODUCTION. 1 3 

Christian princes, and with the consent of the Apostolic See 
(ex prcecepto Christianorum principum d ex consensit, apos- 
tolicce sedis) ; as, on the other hand, the Emperor at an earlier 
period wrote to the Pope, " The Synod is to be held te auctore" 
The Pope s share in convoking the Council of Chalcedon was, 
moreover, so universally acknowledged, that, soon after, the 
Bishop of Msesia said, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor 
Leo : " Many bishops are assembled at Chalcedon by the order 
of Leo the Roman Pontiff, who is truly the head of the bishops " 
(per jussionem Leonis Eomani Pontificis, qiii vere caput episco- 
porum). 2 

5. There can be no doubt that the fifth (Ecumenical Synod 
in the year 553, like the first four, was convoked by the 
Emperor (Justinian I.) ; but it is also certain that it was not 
without consultation with the Pope. Vigilius says himself 
that he had agreed with the Emperor Justinian, in the pre 
sence of the Archbishop Mennas of Constantinople and other 
ecclesiastical and civil rulers, that a great synod should be 
held, and that the controversy over the three chapters should 
rest until this synod should decide it. 3 Vigilius expressed 
his desire for such a synod in a second letter ad universam 
ecclesiam? whilst he strongly disapproved of the Emperor s in 
tention of putting an end to the controversy by an imperial 
edict, and was for that reason obliged to take to flight. When 
they had become reconciled, Vigilius again expressed his desire 
for the holding of a synod which should decide the contro 
versy; and the deputies of the fifth Council afterwards de 
clared that he had promised to be present at the Synod. 6 
What is certain is, that Vigilius had desired the postponement 
of the opening, in order to wait for the arrival of several Latin 
bishops ; and in consequence, notwithstanding repeated and 
most respectful invitations, he took no part in the sessions of 
the Synod. 7 The breach was widened when, on the 14th of 
May 553, the Pope published his Constitutum, declaring that 

1 Ep. 73. 2 Hard. ii. p. 710. 

3 Cf. Frag, damnationis Theodorl (Aseidse) in Hardouin, t. iii. p. 8. Cf. 
Schrockh, Kirckeng. Bd. xviii. S. 590. 

4 Hard. iii. p. 3. 5 Hard. iii. p. 12 E, and p. 13 B. 
6 J.c. p. 65 B. 7 Hard. I.e. 63, 65 ss. 



14 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

lie could not agree with the anathematizing of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia and Theodoret. 1 At the suggestion of the Emperor, 
the Synod at its seventh session, May 26, 553, decided that 
the name of Vigilius should be struck out of the diptychs, 
which was done, so that the Pope and the Council were now 
in open antagonism. In his decree to Eutychius of Constan 
tinople, however, dated December 8, 553, and in his second 
Constitutum of February 23, 554, Vigilius approved of the 
decrees of the fifth Synod, and pronounced the bishops who 
had put them forth that is, the members of the Synod to 
be his brethren and his fellow-priests. 2 

6. The case of the sixth (Ecumenical Synod, A.D. 680, is 
quite the same as that of the third. The Emperor Constan- 
tine Pogonatus convoked it, 3 and requested the Pope to send 
legates to it. 4 Pope Agatho, however, not only did this, which 
involves an assent to the imperial convocation of the Synod ; 
but he sent to the Emperor, and thus also to the Council, a 
complete exposition of the orthodox faith, and thus prescribed 
to it a rule and directions for its proceedings ; and the Synod 
acknowledged this, as the Synod of Ephesus had done, inas 
much as they say, in their letter to Agatho, " Through that 
letter from thee we have overcome the heresy . . . and have 
eradicated the guilty by the sentence previously brought con 
cerning them through your sacred letter" (ex sententiaper sacras 
mstras literas de Us prius lata). 5 

7. The seventh (Ecumenical Synod the second of Mcrea, 
in the year 787- -was suggested to the Empress Irene by the 
Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, who endeavoured to re 
store the reverence for images and union with Eome. The 
Empress and her son, the Emperor Constantine, approved of 
this ; but before the imperial letters of convocation were 
issued, they sent an ambassador to Pope Hadrian I. with a 
letter (785), in which they requested him to be present at the 
projected (Ecumenical Synod, either personally or at least 

1 Hard. I.e. pp. 10-48. [This must be distinguished from the Constitutum 
of 554.] 

2 See at the end of this Constitutum in Hard. iii. pp. 218-244 ; and in 
the decree, ib. pp. 213-218. 

3 Hard. iii. p. 1055. 4 I.e. p. 1459. 5 Hard. iii. 143S. 



INTRODUCTION. 



15 



by his representatives. 1 In the October of the same year, 
Hadrian I. sent an answer to the Emperor and Empress, as well 
as to the Patriarch, and promised to send his legates to the 
intended Synod, which he afterwards did, and thereby practi 
cally declared his consent to its convocation. Nay more, in 
his letter to Charles the Great, he goes so far as to say, 
" And thus they held that Synod according to our appoint 
ment " (ct sic synodum istam secunclum nostram ordinationem) ; 
and thereby ascribes to himself a still closer participation in 
the holding of this Synod. 2 

8. The last synod which was convoked by an emperor was 
the eighth oecumenical, which was held at Constantinople in 
the year 869. The Emperor Basil the Macedonian had de 
throned his former colleague Michael in., or The Drunken, 
and deposed his creature, the schismatical Photius, from the 
patriarchal chair, replacing the unlawfully deposed Ignatius, 
and thereby restoring the union of the Greek and Latin 
Churches. As, however, Photius still had followers, the Em 
peror considered it necessary to arrange the ecclesiastical re 
lations by means of a new oecumenical council, and for that 
purpose sent an embassy to Pope Nicolas I., requesting him 
to send his representatives to the intended Council. In the 
meantime Nicolas died; but his successor, Hadrian II., not 
only received the imperial message, but sent the legates, as 
it had been wished, to the Council, and thereby gave his 
consent to the convocation of this (Ecumenical Synod. 3 

All the subsequent oecumenical synods were held in the 
West, and summoned directly by the Popes, from the first of 
Lateran, the ninth (Ecumenical Synod, to the holy Synod of 
Trent, while smaller synods were still convoked by Kings and 
Emperors; 4 and Pope Leo X. declared in the most decided 
way, at the eleventh session of the fifth Lateran Synod, with 
a polemical reference to the so-called propositions of Con 
stance, that the Pope had the right to convoke, to transfer, 
and to dissolve oecumenical synods. 5 

1 Hard. iv. 21 ss. 2 Hard iv. 818 E. 3 Hard. v. 765, 766. 

* Hard. xi. 1078 sq, 5 Hard ix. 1828 a. 



16 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

SEC. 4. Members of Councils. 

In considering the further question, who has a right to be 
a member of a synod, it is necessary first to distinguish be 
tween the diocesan and other synods. For whilst in the 
latter either the only members or at least the chief members 
are bishops, the diocesan synod, with the exception of the 
president, is made up of the other clergy ; and whilst the 
privileged members of the other synods have a votum deci- 
sivum, a vote in determining the decrees of the synod, those 
of the diocesan synod have only a votum consultativum, a 
right to be present and speak, but not to vote on the decrees. 
Here the bishop alone decides, the others are only his coun 
sellors, and the decision is pronounced in his name. The 
members of the diocesan synod are divided into three classes. 

1. Those whom the bishop is bound to summon, and who 
are bound to appear. To this class belong deans, archpres- 
byters, mcarii foranei, 1 the vicar-general, the parochial clergy 
by deputies ; and, according to more recent law and custom, 
the canons of cathedral churches, the provost and canons of 
collegiate churches, and the ablates sceculares. 2 

2. Those whom the bishop may, but need not summon, but 
who are "bound to come when he summons them ; , for example, 
the prebendaries of cathedrals who are not canons. 

3. Lastly, those who in general are not bound to appear, as 
the clerici simplices. But if the synod has for its special pur 
pose to introduce an improvement in the morals of the clergy, 
or to impart to them the decisions of a provincial synod, these 
must also appear when they are summoned. 

With respect to the members of other kinds of synods, 
ancient Church history gives us the following results : 

1 i.e. vicars -general for districts outside the bishop s see. ED. 

2 It is more difficult to settle the question with reference to the regular clergy. 
Among these must be distinguished the exempt and the non-exempt. The 
latter, abbots and monks, must appear. The exempt regulars are divided into 
two classes : (1) those who, in conjunction with other houses of their own orders, 
are under a general chapter; and (2) those who, being free, are subject to no such 
higher authority. The latter must appear ; the former generally not. They, 
however, are also bound to appear if they have parish churches or any other 
cure of souls. So it was ordered by the Council of Trent, sess. xxiv. c. 2, 
J)e reform. 



INTRODUCTION. 1 7 

1. The earliest synods were those held in Asia Minor 
about the middle of the second century, on the occasion of 
Montanism. Eusebius does not say who were present at 
them ; l but the libellus synodicus informs us that one of these 
synods was held at Hierapolis by Bishop Apollinaris with 
twenty-six other bishops, and a second at Anchialus by Bishop 
Sotas and twelve other bishops. 2 

2. The next synods in order were those which were held 
respecting the celebration of Easter, in the second half of the 
second century. With reference to these, Polycrates of 
Ephesus tells us that Pope Victor had requested him to con 
voke in a synod the bishops who were subordinate to him, 
that he did so, and that many bishops had assembled with 
him in synod. 3 In the chapters of Eusebius in which these 
two classes of councils are spoken of, 4 only bishops are men 
tioned as members of the Synod. And, in the same way, the 
libellus synodicus gives the number of bishops present at each 
council of this time, without referring to any other members. 

3. The letters of convocation for an oecumenical synod 
were directed to the metropolitans, and to some of the more 
eminent bishops ; and the metropolitans were charged to give 
notice to their suffragans. So it was, e.g., at the convocation 
of the third (Ecumenical Synod, for which an invitation was 
sent to Augustine, who was already dead. 5 The invitation to 
appear at the synod was sometimes addressed to the bishops 
collectively, and sometimes it was simply required that the 
metropolitans should personally appear, and bring merely the 
most able of their suffragans with them. The latter was the 
case, e.g., in the summoning of the third and fourth Councils ; 6 
to Nicsea, on the contrary, the bishops seem to have been in 
vited without distinction. Sometimes those bishops who did 
not attend, or who arrived too late, were threatened with 
penalties, as well by the Emperors, e.g. by Theodosius II., as 
Vy earlier and later ecclesiastical canons. 7 

4. The clwrcpiscopi (^wpeTrtWoTrot), or bishops of country 



1 Hist. Eccl. v. 16. 2 See, further on, Book i. c. i. sec. 1. 

3 Exiseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. * Loc. cit. 

6 Hard. i. 1419. c Hard. i. 1343, ii. 45. 

7 Hard. i. 1346, 988 B, 1622 ; ii. 774, 1048, 1174 ; iii. 1029; vii. 1812 ; viii. 960. 

B 



18 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

places, seem to have been considered in ancient times as quite 
on a par with the other bishops, as far as their position in 
synods was concerned. We meet with them at the Councils 
of Neocsesarea in the year 314, of Nicsea in 325, of Ephesus 
in 4 3 1. 1 On the other hand, among the 600 bishops of the 
fourth (Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, there is no 
cJwrepiscopus present, for by this time the office had been 
abolished ; but in the middle ages we again meet with clwr- 
episcopi of a new kind at Western councils, particularly at 
those of the Erench Church, at Langres in 830, 2 at Mainz in 
S47, 3 at Pontion in 876, at Lyons in 886, at Douzy in 871. 4 
Bishops without a diocese have a certain resemblance to these; 
and such we meet with at synods, as in the year 585 at 
Macon in France. 5 It is disputed whether those who are 
merely titular bishops have a right to vote at a council ; and 
it has generally been decided in this way, that there is no 
obligation to summon such, but when they are summoned 
they have a right to vote. 6 

5. Towards the middle of the third century we find a de 
parture from this ancient practice of having only bishops as 
members of synods, first in Africa, when Cyprian assembled, 
at those synods which he held with reference to the restora 
tion of the lapsed, besides the bishops of his province and his 
clergy, confessores et laicos stantes, i.e. those laymen who lay 
under no ecclesiastical penance. 7 So there were present at 
the Synod held by S. Cyprian on the subject of baptism by 
heretics, on the 1st of September (probably A.D. 256), besides 
eighty-seven bishops, very many priests and deacons, and 
maxima pars plebis? And the Eoman clergy, in their letter 
to Cyprian 9 on the subject, request that the bishops will take 
counsel in synods, in common with the priests, deacons, and 
laicis stantibus. It must not be overlooked, however, that 
Cyprian makes a difference between the membership of the 

1 Hard. i. 286, 314-320, 1486. 2 Hard. iv. 1364. 

3 Hard. v. 5. 

* Hard. vi. 180, 396; v. 1316 B, 1318. e Hard. iii. 466. 

6 Walter, Kirchenr. (Canon Law), S. 157 (S. 294, llth ed.). 

7 Cypriani Ep. 11, p. 22 ; Ep. 13, p. 23 j Ep. 66, p. 114 ; Ep. 71, p. 126 
(ed. Baluz.). 

s Cypriani Opp. p. 329 (ed. Bal.). Cyp. Epp. 31, p. 43. 



INTRODUCTION. 19 

bisliops and of others. We learn from his thirteenth letter, 1 
that the bishops come together with the clergy, and the laity 
are only present (prcepositi cum clero convenientes, prcesente etiam 
stantium plebe) ; from his sixty-sixth letter, that the priests, 
etc., were the assessors of the bishops (compresbyteri, gui nobis 
assidebanf). In other places Cyprian speaks only of the 
bishops as members of the synod, 2 and from other passages 3 
it comes out that the bishops had at these synods taken the 
advice and opinion of the laity as well as the clergy. It is 
never, however, in the least degree indicated that either the 
clergy or the laity had a wtum decisivum ; but the contrary 
is evident, namely, that in the Synod of Cyprian referred to, 
which was held September 1, 256, only bishops were voters. 4 

6. Eusebius relates 5 that a great number of bishops of 
Asia assembled in synod at Antioch in the year 264 or 265, 
on the subject of Paul of Samosata, and he adds that their 
priests and deacons came with them. In the following 
chapter Eusebius gives an account of the Synod at Antioch in 
269, and makes special reference to the priest of Antioch, 
Malchion, who was present at the Synod, and by his logical 
ability compelled Paul of Samosata, who wanted to conceal 
his false doctrine, to explain himself clearly. In addition to 
this, Eusebius gives in the thirtieth chapter the circular letter 
which this Synod, after pronouncing the deposition of Paul, 
addressed to the rest of the Church. And this letter is sent 
forth not in the name of the bishops only, but of the other 
clergy who were present as well ; and among these Malchion 
is named in the superscription, whilst the names of many of 
the bishops and according to Athanasius there were seventy 
present are wanting. We see, then, that priests and deacons 
were members of several synods ; but we cannot determine 
from the original documents how far their rights extended, 
and whether they had more than a mere consultative voice in 
the acts of the synod. As far as analogy can guide us, it 
would appear they had no more. 

7. In the two Arabian Synods which were held on the 

1 Pp. 23, 329. 2 Ep. 71, p. 127 ; Ep. 73, pp. 129, 130. 

3 Ep. 11, p. 22 ; Ep. 13, p. 23 ; Ep. 31, p. 43. 

4 Gyp. Opp. pp. 330-338 (ed. Baluz.). 6 Hist. Ecd. vii. 28. 



20 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

subject of Beryllus and the Hypnopsychites, Origen held a 
place similar to that which had been occupied by Malchion. 
The bishops summoned him to the Synod, so as to render his 
learning and ability serviceable to the Church ; but it was the 
bishops themselves who held the Synod. 

8. In many synods of the following centuries, besides the 
bishops, priests and deacons were present. So it was at 
Elvira, 1 at Aries, 2 at Carthage 3 in 397, at Toledo 4 in 400, 
etc. The bishops and priests had seats, but the deacons had 
to stand. 5 The decrees of the ancient synods were for the 
most part signed only by the bishops. It was so at the 
Councils of Ancyra, of Neocaesarea although in this case the 
subscriptions are somewhat doubtful ; at the first and second 
(Ecumenical Councils, those of Nicsea and Constantinople ; at 
the Councils of Antioch in 341, of Sardica, etc. Sometimes 
also the priests and deacons subscribed the decrees, and then 
either immediately after the name of their own bishop, as at 
Aries, 6 or else after the names of all the bishops. 7 It was, 
however, not so common for the priests and deacons to join 
in the subscription, and it did not occur in the fourth or 
fifth century : for we find that, even in the case of synods at 
which we know that priests and deacons were present, only 
bishops subscribed; as at ISTicasa, at Carthage in 397, 389, 
40 1, 8 at Toledo in 400, 9 and at the (Ecumenical Councils of 
Ephesus and Chalcedon. 10 At a later period we meet again, 
at some synods, with signatures of priests and deacons, as at 
Lyons in 830. 11 The difference between the rights of the 
priests and those of the bishops is made clear by the signa 
tures of the Council of Constantinople under Flavian in 448. 
The deposition of Eutyches which was there pronounced was 
subscribed by the bishops with the formula, optcras vTreypayfra, 
definiens sulscripsi, and afterwards by twenty-three archiman 
drites, or superiors of convents, merely with the word vTreypa^a 
without opiaasP At the Eobber-Synod of Ephesus, on the 

Hard. i. 250. 2 Hard. i. 266. 3 Hard. i. 961. 

4 Hard. i. 989. 5 Hard. i. 989, 961, 250. 6 Hard. i. 266 ss. 

7 Hard. i. 250. 8 Hard. i. 971, 986, 983. 9 Ic. p. 992. 

10 l.c. p. 1423 ss., ii. 466 ss. n Hard. iv. 1365 s. 
12 Hard. ii. 167. 



INTRODUCTION. 2 1 

contrary, along with other anomalies, we find the Archiman 
drite Barsumas of Syria signing, as a fully privileged member 
of the Synod, with the word oplo-as, 1 and that because the 
Emperor Theodosius II. had summoned him expressly. 

9. It is easily understood, and it is shown by the ancient 
acts of councils, that priests and deacons, when they were 
the representatives of their bishops, had a right to give, like 
them, a votum decisivum, and subscribed the acts of the synod 
with the formula op/cra?. 2 And this is expressed at a much 
later period by the Synods of Eouen in 1581, and of Bor 
deaux in 1583, by the latter with the limitation that only 
priests should be sent as the representatives of the bishops. 3 

1 0. Other clergymen, deacons in particular, were employed 
at synods, as secretaries, notaries, and the like at Ephesus 
and Chalcedon, for instance ; 4 and they had often no insignifi 
cant influence, particularly their head, the primicerius nota- 
riorum, although they had no vote. Some of these notaries 
were official, and were the servants of the synod ; but besides 
these, each bishop could bring his own notary or secretary 
with him, and employ him to make notes and minutes of the 
sessions : for it was only at the Eobber-Synod that the violent 
Dioscurus allowed no other notaries than his own, and those 
of some of his friends. 5 From the nature of the case, there 
is nothing to prevent even laymen from being employed in 
such work ; and we are informed distinctly by ^Eneas Sylvius 
that he performed such duties, as a layman, at the Synod of 
Basle. It is, moreover, not at all improbable that the secre- 
tarii divini consistorii, who were present at some of the ancient 
synods at Chalcedon, for instance were secretaries of the 
Imperial Council, and consequently laymen. 6 

11. Besides the bishops, other ecclesiastics have always 
been brought in at councils, oecumenical as well as inferior, 
for the purpose of consultation, particularly doctors of theo 
logy and of canon law, 7 as well as deputies of chapters and 

1 Hard. ii. 272. 2 Hard. i. 815 ss., ii. 272. 3 Hard. x. 1264, 1379. 

4 Hard. i. 1355, ii. 67, 70, 71 ss. 5 Hard. ii. 93. 

6 Fuchs, Biblioth. d. Kirchenvers. (Library of Councils), Bd. i. S. 149. 

7 Thomas Aquinas was in this way summoned by Pope Gregory x. to the 
fourteenth (Ecumenical Council. 



22 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

superiors of monasteries ; and bishops were even requested to 
bring such assistants and counsellors with them to the synod. 
So it was at the Spanish Council at Tarragona in 516. 1 But, 
at the same time, the fundamental principle is undoubted, 
that the vote for the decision of a question belonged to the 
bishops, as to those whom the Holy Ghost has appointed to 
rule the Church of God, and to all others only a consultative 
voice ; and this was distinctly recognised by the Synods of 
Eouen in 1581, and Bordeaux in 1583 and 1684, partly in 
the most general way, 2 in part specifically with reference to 
the deputies of chapters, titular and commendatory abbots. 3 
There has been a doubt with respect to abbots, whether they 
held a place similar to that of the bishops or not ; and a 
different practice seems to have prevailed at different places 
and times. We have already seen that in the ancient Church 
the archimandrites had no vote, even when they were priests. 
On the other hand, a Synod at London, under the famous 
Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 1075, declares : " Be 
sides the bishops and abbots, no one must address the Synod 
without the permission of the archbishop." The abbots are 
here plainly assigned a place of equality with the bishops as 
members of the Synod ; and they subscribed the acts of this 
Synod like the bishops. In the same way the abbots sub 
scribed at other synods, e.g. at Pontion in Trance, A.D. 876, 
at the Council held in the Palatium Ticinum, at Cavaillon, 
and elsewhere ; 5 but, on the other hand, at many other 
councils of the same time, as well as at those of an earlier 
and later period, the bishops alone, or their representatives, 
signed the decrees. So it was at Epaon in 517, at Lyons in 
517, at Ilerda and Valencia in Spain in 524, at Aries in 
524, at Carthage in 525, at Orange in 529, at Toledo in 531, 
at Orleans in 533 ; 6 so also at Cavaillon in 875, at Beauvais 
in 875, at Eavenna in 877, at Tribur in 895. 7 The arch 
deacons seem to have been regarded very much in the same 
way as the abbots, inasmuch as they appeared at synods not 

1 Hard. ii. 1043. 2 Hard> xL 132 . 3 Hard. x. 1264, 1379. 

4 Heard, vi. 1556. 5 Hard. vi. 138, 169, 174, 180. 

6 Hard. ii. 1052, 1054, 1067, 1070, 1071, 1082, 1102, 1141, 1175. 

7 Hard. vi. 161, 164, 190, 456. 



INTRODUCTION. 23 

merely as the representatives of their bishops ; but sometimes 
they signed the acts of the council, even when their bishop 
was personally present. So it was at the Synod of London 
already mentioned. 1 At the end of the middle ages it was 
the common view that abbots and cardinal priests and car 
dinal deacons as well had a votum decisivum at the synods, 
a fact which is expressly stated, as far as regards the abbots, 
by the historian of the Synod of Basle, Augustinus Patricius, 
a Piccolomini of the fifteenth century. 2 He adds, that only 
the Council of Basle allowed the anomaly, and conceded to 
other ecclesiastics the right of voting. But we must remark 
that, according to the statement of the famous Cardinal 
D Ailly, even so early as at the Synod at Pisa in 1409, the 
doctors of divinity and of canon law had a votum decisivum ; 
and that the Council of Constance extended this right, by 
adopting the division of the Council into nations. These 
were, however, anomalies ; and after this stormy period had 
passed by, the ancient ecclesiastical order was restored, that 
only bishops, cardinals, and abbots should have the votum 
decisivum. A place of equality with the abbots was naturally 
assigned to the generals of those widespread orders, which 
had a central authority. This was done at the Council of 
Trent. With regard to the abbots, a distinction was made 
between those who possessed real jurisdiction, and those who 
were only titular or commendatory. To these last there was 
conceded no more than the votum consultativum ; e.g. in the 
Synod at Eouen in 1 5 8 1, and Bordeaux in 1 5 8 3. 3 The former 
went so far as to refuse to acknowledge any such right as 
belonging to the abbots ; and a later synod at Bordeaux, in 
the year 1624, plainly declared that it was an error (erronea 
opinio) to affirm that any others besides bishops had a decisive 
voice in a provincial synod (prater episcopos giiosdam alios 
habere voccm decisivam in concilio provinciali)* In practice, 
however, abbots were still admitted, only with the distinction 
that the bishops were members of the synod " by divine 
right" (jure divino), and the abbots only " by ecclesiastical 
appointment " (institutione ecclesiastics). 

1 Hard. vi. 1557 ; cf. ib. 138. 2 Hard. ix. 1196. 

3 Hard. x. 1264, 1379. * Hard. xi. 132. 



24 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

12. We have already seen, that in the time of Cyprian, 
both in Africa and in Italy, laymen were allowed to be 
present at synods. This custom was continued to later times. 
Thus, e.g., the Spanish Synod at Tarragona, in 516, ordained 
that the bishops should bring to the Synod with them, besides 
the clergy, their faithful sons of the laity. 1 Viventiolus 
Archbishop of Lyons, in the letter by which he summoned a 
synod at Epaon in 517, says : " Xaicos permittimus interesse, 
ut gucB a solis pontificibus ordinanda sunt et populus possit 
agnoscere" [We permit the laity to be present, that the 
people may know those things which are ordained by the 
priests alone.] Moreover, the laity had the power of bringing 
forward their complaints with reference to the conduct of the 
clergy, inasmuch as they had a right to ask for priests of good 
character. 2 The fourth Synod of Toledo, in 633, says ex 
pressly, that laymen also should be invited to the synods. 3 
So, in fact, we meet with distinguished laymen at the eighth 
Synod of Toledo in 653, 4 and at the second of Orange in 
529. 5 In English synods we find even abbesses were present. 
Thus the Abbess Hilda was at the Collatio Pliarensis, or Synod 
of Whitby, in 664, where the question of Easter and of the 
tonsure, and other questions, were discussed ; and the Abbess 
^Elfleda, the successor of Hilda, at the somewhat later Synod 
on the Nith in Northumberland. 6 This presence of abbesses 
of the royal family is, however, exceptional, even when these 
assemblies were nothing else than concilia mixta, as Salmon, 
I.e., explains them to be. That, however, distinguished and 
well-instructed laymen should be introduced without delay 
into provincial synods, was expressly decided by the Congre- 
gatio interpret, concil. by a decree of April 22, 1598 ; and 
the Cceremoniale episcoporum refers to the same, when it speaks 
of the seats which were to be prepared at provincial synods 
for the laity who were present. 7 Pignatelli recommends the 
bishops to be prudent in issuing such invitations to the laity ; 8 

1 Hard. ii. 1043. 2 Hard. ii. 1046. 3 Hard. ill. 580. 

* Hard. iii. 955. 5 Hard. ii. 1102. 

6 Hard. iii. 993, 1826 E. Cf. Schrbdl, First Century of the English Church 
(Das erste Jahrhundert der engl. Kirche), pp. 220, 271. See also Salmon, 
Study on the Councils (Traite de I Etude des Conciles), Paris 1726, p. 844. 

7 Benedict xiv. De synodo dicec. lib. iii. c. 9, n. 7. 8 Bened. xiv. I.e. 



INTRODUCTION. 2 5 

but we still find in 1736 a great many laymen of distinction 
present at the great Maronite Council which was held by 
Simon Assemani as papal legate. 1 At many synods the laity 
present signed the acts ; but at others, and these by far the 
most numerous, they did not sign. At the Maronite Council 
just mentioned, and at the second of Orange, they did sign. 
It is clear from the passage already adduced, referring to the 
Synod of Epaon, that these laymen were admitted only as 
witnesses and advisers, or as complainants. It is remarkable 
that the laity who were present at Orange signed with the 
very same formula as the bishops, namely, consentiens sul- 
scripsi ; whilst in other cases the bishops made use of the 
words definiens sulscripsi; and the priests, deacons, and laymen 
simply used the word sulscripsi. As was natural, the position 
of the laity at the concilia mixta was different : from the very 
character of these, it followed that temporal princes appeared 
as fully qualified members, side by side with the prelates of 
the Church. 2 

13. Among the laity whom we find at synods, the Emperors 
and Kings are prominent. After the Eoman Emperors em 
braced Christianity, they, either personally or by their repre 
sentatives and commissaries, attended the great synods, and 
particularly those which were oecumenical. Thus, Constantino 
the Great was personally present at the first (Ecumenical 
Council ; 3 Theodosius n. sent his representatives to the third, 
and the Emperor Marcian sent his to the fourth ; and besides, 
at a later period, he was personally present, with his wife 
Pulcheria, at the sixth session of this Council of Chalcedon. 4 
So the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus attended at the sixth 
(Ecumenical Council ; 5 at the seventh, on the other hand, 
Irene and her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus were present 
only by deputies ; whilst at the eighth the Emperor Basil 
the Macedonian took part, sometimes personally and some 
times by representatives. 6 Only in the case of the second 
and fifth (Ecumenical Synods we find neither the Emperors 
nor their representatives present ; but the Emperors (Theo- 

1 Bened. xiv. I.e. n. 5. 2 See above, p. 5. 

1 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 10. * Hard. i. 1346, ii. 53, 463. 

6 Hard. iii. 1055. Hard. iv. 34, 534, 745, v. 764, 823, 896. 



26 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

closius the Great and Justinian) were at the time present in 
the city of Constantinople, where those councils were held, 
and in constant communication with the Synod. 

It was, as we perceive, simply at the oecumenical synods 
that the Emperors were present. To this fact Pope Nicholas 
I. expressly appeals in his letter to the Emperor Michael, A.D. 
865, 1 and infers from it that all other synods ought to be 
held without the presence of the Emperor or his representa 
tives. In agreement with this Pope, a few years later the 
eighth (Ecumenical Council declared, that it was false to 
maintain that no synod should be held without the presence 
of the Emperor; that, on the contrary, the Emperors had 
been present only at the oecumenical councils ; and, moreover, 
that it was not proper for temporal princes to be present at 
provincial synods, etc., for the condemnation of the clergy. 2 
They might have added, that so early as the fourth century 
the bishops complained loudly when Constantine the Great 
sent an imperial commissioner to the Synod of Tyre in 335. 3 
In the West, on the contrary, the Kings were present even 
at national synods. Thus, Sisenand, the Spanish King of the 
West Goths, was present at the fourth Council of Toledo in 
the year 633, and King Chintilan at the fifth of Toledo in 
6 3 8 ; 4 Charles the Great at the Council of Frankfurt in 
794, 5 and two Anglo-Saxon Kings at the Collatio Pharensis, 
already mentioned, in 664. We find royal commissaries at 
the eighth and ninth Synods of Toledo in 653 and 655. 6 
In later times the opinion gradually gained ground, that 
princes had a right to be present, either personally or by 
representatives, only at the oecumenical councils. Thus we 
find King Philip le Bel of France at the fifteenth (Ecumenical 
Synod at Vienne in 1311, the Emperor Sigismund at the 
Council of Constance, and the representatives (oratores) of 
several princes at the last (Ecumenical Synod at Trent. 
Pius IV. and Pius v. forbid the presence of a royal commissary 
at the Provincial Synod of Toledo ; but the prohibition came 
too late. When, however, a second Provincial Synod was 

1 Hard. v. 158 ; and in the Corp. jur. can. c. 4, diss. 96. 

2 Hard. v. 907, 1103. 3 Athanas. Apolog. contra Arlan. n. 8. 

4 Hard. iii. 578, 597. 6 Hard. iv. 882. 6 Hard. iii. 968, 978. 



INTRODUCTION. 2 7 

held at Toledo in 1582, in the presence of a royal commissary, 
Eome, i.e. the Congregatio Concilii, delayed the confirmation 
of the decrees until the name of the commissary was erased 
from the acts of the Synod. The Archbishop of Toledo, Car 
dinal Quiroga, maintained that such commissaries had been 
present at the ancient Spanish synods; but Eome held fast by 
the principle, that except in oecumenical synods, ubi agitur 
de fide, reformatione, et pace (which treated of faith, reforma 
tion, and peace), no commissaries of princes had a right to be 
present. 1 At the later oecumenical synods, this presence of 
princes or of their representatives beyond all doubt had no 
other significance than to ensure protection to the synods, to 
increase their authority, and to bring before them the special 
wishes of the different states and countries. The celebrated 
Cardinal D Ailly long ago expressed this judgment clearly ; 2 
and, as a matter of fact, there was never conceded to a prince 
or his orator the right to vote, unless he was also a bishop. 
In reference to the most ancient oecumenical synods, it has 
even been maintained that the Emperors were their presidents; 
and this leads us to the further question of the presidency of 
the synods. 

SEC. 5. TIw Presidency of Councils. 

As the presidency of a diocesan synod belongs to the 
bishop, of a provincial synod to the metropolitan, of a 
national to the primate or patriarch, so, in the nature of the 
case, the presidency of an oecumenical council belongs to the 
supreme ruler of the whole Church to the Pope ; and this 
is so clear, that the most violent partisans of the episcopal 
system, who assign to the Pope only a primacy of honour 
(primatus honoris), yet do not in the least impugn his right 
to preside at oecumenical synods. 3 The Pope may, however, 
exercise this presidency in person, or he may be represented, 
as has frequently been the case, by his legates. Against this 

1 Benedict xiv. De Synodo dicec. lib. iii. c. 9, n. 6. 

2 Benedict xiv. I.e. n. 1. 

3 It is unnecessary to remark that all this is simply a part of the Roman 
system, even as understood by Liberals more advanced than Dr. Hefele. In 
a mere translation it would be useless frequently even to point out, much more 
to discuss, such questions. ED. 



28 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

papal right of presidency at oecumenical synods the Eeformers 
brought forward the objection, that the history of the Church 
showed clearly that the Emperors had presided at some of 
the first eight councils. There was, indeed, no difficulty in 
bringing forward proof in support of their assertion, since 
Pope Stephen v. himself writes that the Emperor Constantine 
presided at the first Council of Nicsea, 1 and the ancient acts of 
the synods frequently refer to a presidency of the Emperor or 
his representatives. But all such objections, however dangerous 
they may at first seem to be to our position, lose their power 
when we come to consider more closely the state of things in 
connection with the ancient councils, and are willing to dis 
cuss the matter impartially. 

Let us begin with the eighth (Ecumenical Synod, as the 
last of those which here come into question that is to say, 
the last of the Oriental Synods and from this ascend back to 
the first. 

1. Pope Hadrian n. sent his legates to the eighth (Ecumenical 
Synod, on the express written condition, addressed to the 
Emperor Basil, that they should preside. 2 The legates, Donatus 
Bishop of Ostia, Stephen Bishop of Nepesina, and Marinus a 
deacon of Eome, read this letter before the Synod, without the 
slightest objection being brought forward. On the contrary, 
their names were always placed first in the minutes; the 
duration of the sessions was decided by them ; and they gave 
permission for addresses, for the reading of the acts of the 
Synod, and for the introduction of other members of the 
Synod ; and appointed the questions for discussion. 3 In short, 
they appear in the first five sessions without dispute as the 
presidents of the Synod. At the sixth and following sessions 
the Emperor Basil was present, with his sons Constantine and 
Leo ; and he obtained the presidency, as the acts relate. 4 
But these acts clearly distinguish the Emperor and his sons 
from the Synod ; for, after naming them, they add, " the holy 
and oecumenical Synod agreeing" (convenience sancta ac uni- 
versali synodd). Thus we perceive that the Emperor and 
his sons are not reckoned . among the members of the Synod, 

1 Hard. v. 1119. 2 Hard. v. 768, 1030. 

Hard. v. 781, 782, 783, 785, 786 ss. 4 Hard. v. 823, 838, 896, 1098. 



IXTEODUCTIOX. 2 9 

whilst the papal legates are constantly placed first among the 
members. It is the legates, too, who in these later sessions 
decide the subjects which shall be brought forward: 1 they 
also are the first who sign the acts of the Synod, and that 
expressly as presidents (prcesidentes) ; whilst the Emperor gave 
a clear proof that he did not regard himself as the real presi 
dent, by wishing to sign them after all the bishops. The 
papal legates, on the other hand, entreated him to place his 
own and his sons names at the top ; but he decidedly refused 
this, and at last consented to sign after the representatives 
of the Pope and the Oriental bishops, and before the other 
bishops. 2 In perfect agreement with this, Pope Hadrian II., 
in his letter to the Emperor, commended him for having been 
present at this Synod, not as judge (juclex), but as witness 
and protector (conscius et otsecundator). 3 Still less than the 
Emperors themselves had the imperial commissaries who were 
present at synods a right of presidency, since their names were 
placed, in all minutes of the sessions, immediately after the 
representatives of the patriarchs, but before the other bishops, 4 
and they did not subscribe the acts at all. On the other hand, it 
may be said that the patriarchs of the East Ignatius of Con 
stantinople, and the representatives of the others in some 
measure participated in the presidency, since they are always 
named along with the Eoman legates, and are carefully dis 
tinguished from the other metropolitans and bishops. They 
form, together with the Ptoman legates, so to speak, the board 
of direction, deciding in common with them the order of the 
business, 5 regulating with them the rule of admission to the 
synod. They subscribe, like the legates, before the Emperor, 
and are named in the minutes and in the separate sessions 
before the imperial commissaries. But, all this being granted, 
the papal legates still take undeniably the first place, inas 
much as they are always the first named, and first subscribe 
the acts of the Synod, and, what is particularly to be observed, 
at the last subscription make use of the formula, " presiding 
over this holy and cecumenical synod " (Imiic sanctce et univer- 
sali synodo prcesiclcns) ; whilst Ignatius of Constantinople and 

1 Hard. v. 898, 912. 2 Hard. v. 921-923, 1106. 3 Hard. v. 939 A. 

4 Hard. v. 764, 782, 788 ss. 5 Hard. v. 898 D, 912 C. 



30 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the representatives of the other patriarchs claim no presidency, 
but subscribe simply with the words, " As receiving this holy 
and oecumenical synod, and agreeing with all things which it 
has decided, and which are written here, and as defining them, 
I subscribe" (sanctam hanc et universalem synodum suscipiens, 
et omnibus qiice db ea judicata, et scripta sunt concordans, et 
definiens subscripsi). Moreover, as we find a remarkable dif 
ference between them and the papal legates, so there is also, 
on the other side, a considerable difference between their 
signature and that of the other bishops. The latter, like the 
Emperor, have simply used the words, suscipiens subscript, 
without the addition of dcfiniens, by which the wtum decisivum 
was usually indicated. 1 

2. At all the sessions of the seventh (Ecumenical Synod, 
the papal legates, the Archpresbyter Peter and the Abbot 
Peter, came first ; after them Tarasius Archbishop of Con 
stantinople, and the representatives of the other patriarchs; 
next to them the other bishops ; and, last of all, the imperial 
commissaries. 2 The decrees were signed in the same order, 

o * 

only that the imperial commissaries took no part in the sub 
scription. 3 The Empress Irene and her son were present at 
the eighth and last session of the Council as honorary presi 
dents, and signed the decrees of the first seven sessions, which 
had been already signed by the bishops. 4 According to a 
Latin translation of the acts of this Synod, it was only the 
papal legates, the Bishop of Constantinople, and the repre 
sentatives of the other Eastern patriarchs, who on this occasion 
made use of the word definiens in subscribing the decrees, just 
as at the eighth Council ; 5 but the Greek version of the acts 
has the word opiaas in connection with the signature of the 
other bishops. 6 Besides, we must not omit to state that, not 
withstanding the presidency of the papal legates, Tarasius 
Archbishop of Constantinople had the real management of 
the business at this Synod. 7 

3. At the sixth (Ecumenical Synod the Emperor Constan- 

1 Hard. v. 923. 2 Hard> iv 28 ss . 3 H ard. iv. 455 ss., 748. 

* Hard. iv. 483. 486. 5 Hard. iv. 748 sq. 6 Hard. iv. 457 sq. 

7 Compare the author s essay on the second Council of Nicaea, in the Freiburg 
Klrctienlexicon, Bd. vii. S. 563. 



INTRODUCTION. 31 

tine Pogonatus was present in person, together with several 
high officials of the state. The minutes of the sessions name 
him as president, and give the names of his officials imme 
diately after his own. They next proceed to the enumeration 
of the proper members of the Synod, with the formula, " the 
holy and oecumenical Synod being assembled" (<Twe\0ova-r)s 
Se /cal r?}? aylas KOI olfcov^ei t/crj^ crvvoSov), thereby distin 
guishing, as in the case already mentioned, the Emperor and 
his officials from the Synod proper; and name as its first 
members the papal legates, the priests Theodore and George, 
and the deacon John. 1 So these legates are the first to sub 
scribe the acts of the Council; and the Emperor signed at 
the end, after all the bishops, and, as is expressly stated, to 
give more authority to the decrees of the Synod, and to con 
firm them with the formula, " We have read and consented " 
(legimus et consensimus) 2 He thus made a distinction between 
himself and the Synod proper ; whilst it cannot, however, be 
denied that the Emperor and his plenipotentiaries often con 
ducted the business of the Synod. 3 

4. At the fifth (Ecumenical Council, as has been already 
pointed out, 4 neither the Emperor (Justinian) nor yet the Pope 
or his legate was present. It was Eutychius, the Archbishop 
of Constantinople, who presided. 5 

5. The fourth (Ecumenical Council is of more importance 
for the question now before us. So early as on the 24th of 
June 451, Pope Leo the Great wrote to the Emperor Marcian 
that he had named Paschasinus Bishop of Lilybseum as his 
legate (prcedictum fratrem et coepiscopum meum vice mea synodo 
convenit prcesidere). 6 This legate, Paschasinus, in the name 
of himself and his colleagues (for Leo associated with him two 
other legates the Bishop Lucentius and the Priest Boniface), 
at the third session of Chalcedon, issued the announcement 
that Pope Leo had commanded them, insignificant as they 
were, to preside in his place over this holy synod (nostram 

1 Hard. iii. 1055, 1061, 1065, 1072. 2 Hard. iii. 1402, 1414, 1435. 

3 Hard. iii. 1059, 1063, 1066, 1070, 1303 A, 1307, 1326, 1327. 

4 Pp. 13 and 25. 5 Hard. iii. 202. 

6 Leonis Ep. 89, t. i. p. 1062, ed. Bailer. That Leo here asserted a right, 
and did not merely prefer a petition for the presidency to the Emperor, has 
been shown by Peter de Marca, De concord, sacerdotii et imp. lib. v. 6. 



32 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

parvitatem fiuic sancto concilio pro se prcesidere prcecepif) ; l and 
soon after, Pope Leo wrote to the bishops of Gaul, speaking of 
his legates, in the following terms: " My brothers who pre 
sided in my stead over the Eastern Synod " (Fratres mei, qui 
vice mea orientali synodo prcesederunt)? Pope Vigilius after 
wards asserted the same, when, in a circular letter addressed 
to the whole Church, he says, " over which our predecessor of 
holy memory, Pope Leo, presided by his legates and vicars" 
(cui sanctce recordationis decessor noster papa Leo per legatos suos 
vicariosque prcesedit}? Of still greater importance is it that 
the Council of Chalcedon itself, in its synodal letter to Pope 
Leo, expressly says, &v (i.e. the assembled bishops) av JAW o>? 
/ce^a\rj fjiekwv ^e^oveve^ ev rot? rr)V arjv TCL^IV eTre^ovo-L ; that 
is to say, " Thou, by thy representatives, hast taken the lead 
among the members of the Synod, as the head among the 
members of the body." 4 These testimonies especially the 
last are of so much weight, that they would seem to leave 
no room for doubt. And yet, on the other hand, it is a 
matter of fact that imperial commissaries had the place of 
honour at the Synod of Chalcedon, in the midst, before the 
rails of the altar ; 5 they are the first named in the minutes ; 6 
they took the votes, arranged the order of the business, closed 
the sessions, and thus discharged those functions which belong 
to the president of an assembly. 7 In the sixth session the 
Emperor Marcian was himself present, proposed the questions, 
and conducted the business. 8 In these acts the Emperor and 
his commissaries also appear as the presidents, and the papal 
legates only as first among the voters. How, then, can we 
reconcile the contradiction which apparently exists between 
these facts and the statements already made ? and how could 
the Council of Chalcedon say that, by sending his legates, the 
Pope had taken the lead among the members of the Synod ? 
The solution of the difficulty is to be found in the same 
synodical letter written by the Pope to the Synod. It reads 

1 Hard. ii. 310. 2 Leonis Ep. 103, t. i. p. 1141, ed. Bailer. 

3 Hard. iii. 5. 4 Leonis Ep. 98, t. i. p. 1039, ed. Bailer. 

5 Hard. ii. 66. 6 Hard. ii. 54, 274 ss. 

7 Hard. ii. 67, 70, 90, 94, 114, 271, 307. 

8 Hard. ii. 486 s. 



INTRODUCTION. 3 



o 



thus : " Faithful Emperors have used the presidency for the 
better preservation of order" (/Sao-tXet? Be w*<rro} irpos ev- 
Koa-^iav ef fjpxov ). 1 In fact, this presidency which was 
granted to the imperial commissaries referred only to the 
outward working to the material conducting of the business 
of the synod. They were not connected with the internal 
work, and left the decisions of the synods without interfer 
ence, gave no vote in the determination of questions con 
cerning the faith, and repeatedly distinguished between 
themselves and the council. 2 The acts of Chalcedon also 
show the same distinction. After having mentioned the 
imperial commissaries, they add these words, " the holy Synod 
assembled," 3 etc. We may add also, that neither the Emperor 
nor his commissaries signed the acts of the Council of Chal 
cedon : it was the Pope s legate who always signed first, and 
repeatedly added to his name, even when the Emperor was 
present, the title of synodo prwsidens* 

We are thus gradually able to explain the double relations 
existing between the papal legates and the imperial com 
missaries, quite analogous to that expressed in the words of 
Constantine the Great : " And I am a bishop. You are bishops 
for the interior business of the Church" (TWV e icrw rij<; 
/cK\rjcrlas) ; "I am the bishop chosen by God to conduct the 
exterior business of the Church" (ejco Se rtov e/cro? VTTO 
Seov Ka@a-Tafjuevo<i). 5 The official conduct of business, so 
to speak, the direction TWV efo> as well as the seat of honour, 
was reserved for the imperial commissaries. The Pope s legates, 
although only having the first place among the voters, had 
the presidency, Kara ra el crco, of the synod, that is, of the 
assembly of the bishops in specie; and when the imperial 
commissaries were absent, as was the case during the third 

* o 

session, they had also the direction of the business. 6 

6. The Emperor Theodosius n. nominated the Comes Can- 
didian as his representative at the third (Ecumenical Council, 
held at Ephesus in 431. In a letter addressed to the as 
sembled fathers, the Emperor himself clearly determined the 

1 Bailer, t. i. p. 1089. 2 Hard. ii. 634. 3 Hard. ii. 53. 

4 Hard. ii. 467, 366. 5 Euseb. Vita Const, lib. iv. c. 24. 

fl Hard. ii. 310 ss. 



34 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

situation of Candidian towards the Council. He says : " I 
have sent Candidian to your Synod as Comes sacrorum domesti- 
corum ; but he is to take no part in discussions on doctrine, 
since it is not allowable to any one, unless enrolled among 
the most holy bishops, to intermeddle in ecclesiastical dis 
cussions " (aOejJLLTOV 7p, TOV fjirj rou /caraXcyov r&v 
TV<Y)(avovTa rot? 



The Emperor then positively indicates what were to be the 
duties of Candidian : namely, that he was to send away the 
laity and the monks, if they repaired in too great numbers 
to Ephesus; he was to provide for the tranquillity of the 
city and the safety of the Synod ; he was to take care that 
differences of opinion that might arise between the members 
of the Synod should not degenerate into passionate contro 
versies, but that each might express his opinion without fear 
or hindrance, in order that, whether after quiet or noisy dis 
cussions upon each point, the bishops might arrive at a unani 
mous decision. Finally, he was to prevent any one from 
leaving the Synod without cause, and also to see that no other 
theological discussion should be entered into than that which 
had occasioned the assembling of the Synod, or that no private 
business should be brought up or discussed. 1 

Pope Celestine I. on his side had appointed the two bishops 
Arcadius and Projectus, together with the priest Philippus, as 
his legates, and had instructed them to act according to the 
advice of Cyril, and to maintain the prerogatives of the 
Apostolic See. 2 The Pope had before nominated Cyril as his 
representative in the Nestorian matter, and in his letter of 
10th of August 430 3 he invested him with full apostolic 
power. It is known that from the beginning Candidian 
showed himself very partial to the friends of Nestorius, and 
tried to postpone the opening of the Council. When, how 
ever, Cyril held the first sitting on the 24th June 431, the 
Count was not present, and so his name does not appear in the 
minutes. On the contrary, at the head of the list of the bishops 
present is found the name of Cyril, with this significant ob 
servation, " that he took the place of Celestine, the most holy 
1 Hard. i. 1346 sq. 2 Hard. i. 1347, 1473. 3 Hard. i. 1323. 



INTRODUCTION. 35 

Archbishop of Rome." l Cyril also directed the order of the 
business, either in person, as when he explained the chief 
object of the deliberations, 2 or else through Peter, one of his 
priests, whom he made primicerius notariorum. 3 Cyril was 
also the first to sign the acts of the first session, and the sen 
tence of deposition pronounced against Nestorius. 4 

In consequence of this deposition, Count Candidian be 
came the open opponent of the Synod, and the protector of 
the party of Antioch, who held an unlawful council of their 
own under John of Antioch. Cyril notwithstanding fixed the 
10th July 431 for the second session, and he presided ; and 
the minutes mention him again as the representative of Eome. 5 
The other papal legates, who had not arrived in time for the 
first, were present at this second session; and they shared the 
presidency with Cyril, who continued to be called in the 
accounts the representative of the Pope. 6 Cyril was the first 
to sign ; after him came the legate Arcadius ; then Juvenal of 
Jerusalem ; next, the second legate Projectus ; then came 
Flavian bishop of Philippi ; and after him the third legate, the 
priest Philip. 7 All the ancient documents are unanimous in 
affirming that Cyril presided over the Council in the name of 
Pope Celestine. Evagrius 8 says the same ; so Pope Yigilius 
in the profession of faith which he signed ; 9 and Mansuetus 
Bishop of Milan, in his letter to the Emperor Constantine 
Pogonatus. 10 In other documents Pope Celestine and Cyril 
are indiscriminately called presidents of the third (Ecumenical 
Council; the acts of the fourth 11 assert this several times, as 
well as the Emperor Marcian, 12 and in the fifth century the 
Armenian bishops in their letter to the Emperor Leo. 13 

7. When we pass on to the second (Ecumenical Council, it 
is perfectly well known and allowed that it was not presided 
over either by the Pope Damasus or his legate ; for, as has been 
already said, this Council was not at first considered oecumeni 
cal, but only a general council of the Eastern Church. The 

1 Hard. i. 1353. 2 Hard. i. 1422. 3 Hard. i. 1355, 1419. 

4 Hard. i. 1423. 5 Hard. i. 1466. 6 Hard. i. 1486, 1510. 

7 Hard. i. 1527. 8 Hist. Eccl i. 4. 9 Hard. iii. 10. 

10 Hard. iii. 1052. J1 Hard. i. 402, 451. 12 Hard. ii. 671. 
13 Hard. ii. 742. 



36 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

first sessions were presided over by Meletius Archbishop of 
Antioch, who was the chief of all the bishops present, as the 
Archbishop of Alexandria had not arrived at the beginning. 
After the death of Meletius, which happened soon after the 
opening of the Council, it was not the Archbishop of Alex 
andria, but the Archbishop of Constantinople, Gregory of 
Nazianzus, who was the president, and after his resignation 
his successor Nectarius. This took place through the deci 
sion of the Council, which in its third session had assigned to 
the Bishop of new Eome that is, Constantinople the prece 
dency immediately after the Bishop of old Eome. 

8. The solution of the question respecting the presidency 
of the first (Ecumenical Council is not without difficulty ; and 
the greatest acumen has been displayed, and the most venture 
some conjectures have been made, in order to prove that in the 
first Council, at any rate, the Pope was not the president. 
They have endeavoured to prove that the presidency belonged 
to the Emperor, who in a solemn discourse opened the series 
of the principal sessions, and took part in them, seated in the 
place of honour. But Eusebius, who was an eye-witness of the 
Council, and pays the greatest possible respect to the Emperor, 
says most explicitly : " After that (meaning after the opening 
discourse by the Emperor) the Emperor made way for the 
presidents of the Synod" (TrapeSiSov rov \oyov rot? T?}? 
o-vvoBov TTjOoeSpot?). 1 These words prove that Constantine 
was simply the honorary president, as the Emperor Martian 
was subsequently in the sixth session of the Council of 
Chalcedon ; 2 and, as a matter of course, he left to the eccle 
siastical presidents the conducting of the theological discus 
sions. In addition to the testimony of the eye-witness 
Eusebius, we have to the same effect the following documents : 
(a.) The acts of the Council of Mcsea, as far as they exist, 
contain the signatures of the bishops, but not that of the 
Emperor. 3 And if that is true which the Emperor Basil the 
Macedonian said at the eighth (Ecumenical Council, that 
" Constantine the Great had signed at Mcsea after all the 

; Euseb. Vita Const. 1. iii. c. 13. 2 See above, p. 32. 

3 Hard. i. 311 ; Mansi, Collect. Condi, ii. 692 sqc[. We shall give further 
details upon this subject in the history of the Council of Nicaea. 



INTRODUCTION. 37 

bishops," this proves conclusively that Constantino did not 
consider himself as the president proper of the Council. 
(6.) Besides, the Emperor was not present in person at the 
commencement of the Synod. It must, however, have had its 
presidents before the Emperor arrived ; and a short sentence 
in Eusebius alludes to these presidents : irape&lSov . . . TO?? 
irpoeSpois ; that is, " He left the management of the continua 
tion with those who had before presided." (c.) "When several 
complaints of the bishops against each other were presented to 
him, the Emperor had them all burnt, and declared that it was 
not becoming for him to give judgment upon priests. 2 (d.) We 
will finally recall these words of the Emperor already quoted, 
that he was the bishop of the outward circumstances of the 
Church ; words which entirely agree with the position in the 
Council of Nicoea which we have assigned to him. 

Who was, then, really the president of the Synod ? Some 
have tried to solve the question by considering as president 
that bishop who was seated first at the right hand of the 
Emperor, and saluted him with a discourse when he entered 
the Synod. 3 But here arise two observations : first, from the 
Greek word TrpoeSpot? it would appear that there were 
several presidents ; and besides, it is not positively known who 
addressed the discourse to the Emperor. According to the title 
of the eleventh chapter of the third book of the Life of Con- 
stantine by Eusebius, and according to Sozomen, 4 it was Euse 
bius of Csesarea, the historian, himself ; but as he was not a 
bishop of any apostolic or patriarchal see, he could not possibly 
have had the office of president. We cannot say either with 
the Magdeburg Centuriators, that Eusebius was president be 
cause he was seated first on the right side ; for the president 
sat in the middle, and not at one side ; and those patriarchs 
who were present at the Council (we use this term although it 
had not begun to be employed at this period), or their repre 
sentatives, were probably seated together in the middle, by the 
side of the Emperor, whilst Eusebius was only the first of the 
metropolitans seated on the right side. It is different with 

1 Hard. v. 921-923, 1106. See above. 

2 Sozom. Hist. EccL i. 71. 

3 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 11. 4 Hist. EccL i. 19. 



38 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Eustathius Archbishop of Antioch, who, according to Theo- 
doret, 1 pronounced the speech in question which was addressed 
to the Emperor. He was one of the great patriarchs ; and one 
of his successors, John Archbishop of Antioch, in a letter to 
Proclus, calls him the " first of the ISTicene Eathers." The 
Chronicle of Mcephorus expresses itself in the same way 
about him. 2 He cannot, however, be considered as the only 
president of the Council of Mcaea ; for we must regard the 
expression of Eusebius, which is in the plural (TO?? trpoeSpoi*;) ; 
and, besides, it must not be forgotten that the Patriarch of 
Alexandria ranked higher than the Patriarch of Antioch. To 
which, thirdly, it must be added, that the Nicene Council 
itself, in its letter to the Church of Alexandria, 3 says : " Your 
bishop will give you fuller explanation of the synodical 
decrees ; for he has been a leader (/cvpios;) and participator 
(KOIVWVOS) in all that has been done." These words seem to 
give a reason for the theory of Schrockh 4 and others, that 
Alexander and Eustathius were both presidents, and that 
they are intended by Eusebius when he speaks of the 
7r/DoeSpot. 5 But apart from the fact that the word Kvpios 
is here used only as an expression of politeness, and de 
signates perhaps merely a very influential member of the 
Synod, and not the president, there is this against the theory 
of Schrockh, which is expressly asserted by Gelasius of 
Cyzicus, who wrote a history of the Council of Mcsea in 
the fifth century : " And Hosius was the representative of 
the Bishop of Eome ; and he was present at the Council of 
Niceea, with the two Eoman priests Vitus and Vincentius." 
The importance of this testimony has been recognised by all ; 
therefore every means has been tried to undermine it. Gela 
sius, it is said, writes these words in the middle of a long 
passage which he borrowed from Eusebius ; and he represents 
the matter as if he had taken these words also from the 

1 Hist. Ecd. i. 7. 

! Tillemont, Mtmoires pour servir a I hist. eccl. vi. 272 b, Brux. 1732. 

3 Cf. Socrat. i. 9. 4 Schrockh, Kirchengeschichte, Thl. v. S. 335. 

The Bishops of Jerusalem and Constantinople cannot "be referred to here ; 
for it was only subsequently that they were raised to the dignity of patriarchs. 

6 Gelasius, Volumen actorum Condi. Nic. ii. 5 ; Mansi, ii. 806 ; Hard. i. 
375. 



INTKODUCTION. 39 

same historian. Now they are not to be found in Eusehius ; 
therefore they have no historical value. But it must be 
remarked, that Gelasius does not copy servilely from Euse- 
bius ; but in different places he gives details which are not 
in that author, and which he had learned from other sources. 
Thus, after the passage concerning Hosius, he inserts some 
additional information about the Bishop of Byzantium. A 
little further on in the same chapter, he changes the number 
of two hundred and fifty bishops, given by Eusebius, into 
" three hundred and more," and that without giving the 
least indication that he is repeating literally the words of 
Eusebius. We are therefore brought to believe that Gelasius 
has acted in the same way as to Hosius in this passage, 
by introducing the information derived from another source 
into the passage taken from Eusebius, and not at all from 
having misunderstood Eusebius. 

When Baronius and several other Catholic ecclesiastical his 
torians assign to the papal legate Hosius the honour of the 
presidency, they are supported by several authorities for this 
opinion besides Gelasius. Thus, S. Athanasius, in his Apo 
logia de fuga} thus expresses himself about Hosius: IT o I as 
yap ov /cadrjyijo-aro ; that is to say, " Of what synod was 
he not president ?" Theodoret speaks just in the same way : 2 
JTo/a? yap ov% rj<yrj(raTo crvvoBov. Socrates, 3 in giving 
the list of the principal members of the Council of Mcsea, 
writes it in the following order : " Hosius, Bishop of Cor 
dova ; Vitus and Vincentius, priests of Eome ; Alexander, 
Bishop of Alexandria ; Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch ; Ma- 
carius, Bishop of Jerusalem." We see that he follows the 
order of rank : he would therefore never have placed the 
Spanish bishop, Hosius, before the great patriarchs of the 
East, if he had not been the representative of the Pope. 4 

1 B. 5, Athanasii Opera, ed. Patav. 1777, i. 256. 

2 Hist. Eccl. ii. 15. 3 i. 13. 

4 It may be objected that Socrates also mentions, after Macarius Bishop of 
Jerusalem, Arpocration Bishop of Cynopolis (in Egypt), although this episco 
pal see had no such high rank. But, as has been remarked by the Ballerini, 
Socrates simply intended to give a list of the patriarchs, or their representa 
tives, according to rank. As for the other bishops, he contented himself with 
mentioning one only as antesignanus reliqui, and he took the first name in 



40 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

An examination of the signatures of the Council of Nicsea 
leads ns again to the same conclusion. It is true that there 
are many variations to be found in these signatures, if several 
manuscripts are consulted, and that these manuscripts are 
often faulty and defective, as Tillemont 1 has conclusively 
shown ; but in spite of these defects, it is a very significant 
fact, that in every copy, without one exception, Hosius and 
the two Eoman priests sign the first, and after them Alexan 
der Patriarch of Alexandria signs. On this subject the two 
lists of signatures given by Mansi 2 may be consulted, as well 
as the two others given by Gelasius : in these latter Hosius 
expressly signs in the name of the Church of Rome, of the 
Churches of Italy, of Spain, and of the West ; the two Eoman 
priests appear only as his attendants. In Mansi s two lists, 
it is true, nothing indicates that Hosius acted in the Pope s 
name, whilst we are informed that the two Eoman priests 
did so. But this is not so surprising as it might at first 
sight appear, for these Eoman priests had no right to sign 
for themselves : it was therefore necessary for them to say in 
whose name they did so ; whilst it was not necessary for Hosius, 
who as a bishop had a right of his own. 

Schrockh 3 says that Hosius had his distinguished posi 
tion on account of his great influence with the Emperor ; but 
this reasoning is very feeble. The bishops did not sign 
according as they were more or less in favour with Constan- 
tine. If such order had been followed, Eusebius of Csesarea 
would have been among the first. It is highly important to 
remark the order in which the signatures of the Council were 
given. The study of the lists proves that they followed the 
order of provinces : the metropolitan signed first, and after 

his list after the Bishop of Alexandria. Cf. Bailer, de Antiq. Collect., etc., in 
Gallandi, de vetustis Canonum Collectionibus, i. 256. 

1 I.e. p. 355. 

2 ii. 692, 697. See also Mansi, ii. 882, 927. What has been said above 
also shows that Socrates consulted a similar list, in which Hosius and the 
Roman priests were the first to sign. These lists, especially the larger ones, 
which are generally translated into Latin (Mansi, ii. 882 sq.), contain, it is 
true, several inaccuracies in detail, but they are most certainly authentic on 
the whole. Cf. Bailer. I.e. p. 254 sq. 

3 Schrockh, Kircliengesch. Thl. v. S. 336. 




INTRODUCTION. 41 

him the suffragans ; the metropolitan of another province 
followed, and then his suffragan bishops, etc. The enumera 
tion of the provinces themselves was in no particular order : 
thus the province of Alexandria came first, then the Thebaid 
and Libya, then Palestine and Phoenicia ; not till after that 
the province of Antioch, etc. At the head of each group of 
signatures was always written the name of the ecclesiastical 
province to which they belonged ; and this is omitted only 
in the case of Hosius and the two Eoman priests. They 
signed first, and without naming a diocese. It will perhaps 
be objected, that as the Synod was chiefly composed of Greek 
bishops, they allowed the Westerns to sign first out of con 
sideration for them ; but this supposition is inadmissible, for 
at the end of the lists of the signatures of the Council are 
found the names of the representatives of two ecclesiastical 
provinces of the Latin Church. Since Gaul and Africa are 
placed at the end, they would certainly have been united to 
the province of Spain, if Hosius had represented that pro 
vince only, and had not attended in a higher capacity. To 
gether with the two Eoman priests, he represented no particular 
church, but was the president of the whole Synod : therefore 
the name of no province was added to his signature, a fresh 
proof that we must recognise in him and his two colleagues 
the vrpoeSpor, spoken of by Eusebius. The analogy of the 
other oecumenical councils also brings us to the same conclu 
sion ; particularly that of the Council of Ephesus, in which 
Cyril of Alexandria, an otherwise distinguished bishop, who 
held the office of papal legate, like Hosius at Mcsea, signed 
first, before all the other legates who came from Italy. 

It would be superfluous, in the consideration of the ques 
tion which is now occupying us, to speak of the oecumenical 
councils held subsequently to these eight first, since no one 
doubts that these more recent councils were presided over 
either by the Pope or his legates. We will therefore conclude 
the discussion of this point with the remark, that if in some 
national councils the Emperor or Kings were presidents, 1 it was 
either an honorary presidency only, or else they were mixed 

1 Thus Charles the Great at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794, and King Genulf 
at that of Becanceld in England in 799. Cf. Hard. iv. 882 E, 925 C. 



42 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

councils assembled for State business as well as for that of 
the Church. 

The Eobber-Synod of Ephesus, which was held in 449, 
departed from the rule of all the oecumenical councils in the 
matter of the presidency ; and it is well to mention this 
Synod, because at first it was regarded as an oecumenical 
council. We have before said that the presidency of it was 
refused to the Pope s legates ; and by order of the Emperor 
Theodosius n., who had been deceived, it was bestowed upon 
Dioscurus of Alexandria. 1 But the sensation produced by 

this unusual measure, and the reasons given at Chalcedon bv 

j 

the papal legates for declaring this Synod of Ephesus to be 
invalid, indisputably prove that we may here apply the well- 
known axiom, expeptio firmat regulam. 

SEC. 6. Confirmation of the Decrees of the Councils. 

The decrees of the ancient oecumenical councils were con 
firmed by the Emperors and by the Popes ; those of the later 
councils by the Popes alone. On the subject of the confir* 
mation of the Emperors we have the following facts : 

1. Constantino the Great solemnly confirmed the Nicene 
Creed immediately after it had been drawn up by the Council, 
and he threatened such as would not subscribe it with exile. 2 
At the conclusion of the Synod he raised all the decrees of 
the assembly to the position of laws of the empire ; declared 
them to be divinely inspired ; and in several edicts still par 
tially extant, he required that they should be most faithfully 
observed by all his subjects. 3 

2. The second (Ecumenical Council expressly asked for the 
confirmation of the Emperor Theodosius the Great, 4 and he 
responded to the wishes of the assembly by an edict dated the 
30th July S81. 5 

3. The case of the third (Ecumenical Council, which was 
held at Ephesus, was peculiar. The Emperor Theodosius II. 

1 Hard. ii. 80. 2 RufilL Hist Ecc i ^ 5 . Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 9. 

3 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 17-19 ; Socrat. i. 9 ; Gelasii Volumen actorum 
Concilii Nic. lib. ii. c. 36 ; in Hard. i. 445 sqq. ; Mansi, ii. 919. 

4 Hard. i. 807. 

6 Cod. Theodos. i. 3 ; de Fide Cath. vi. 9. See also Yalesius notes t< 
Socrates, v. 8. 



INTRODUCTION. 43 

had first been on the heretical side, but he was brought to 
acknowledge by degrees that the orthodox part of the bishops 
assembled at Ephesus formed the true Synod. 1 However, he 
did not in a general way give his confirmation to the decrees 
of the Council, because he would not approve of the deposition 
and exclusion pronounced by the Council against the bishops 
of the party of Antioch. 2 Subsequently, however, when Cyril 
and John of Antioch were reconciled, and when the party of 
Antioch itself had acknowledged the Council of Ephesus, 
the Emperor sanctioned this reconciliation by a special decree, 
threatened all who should disturb the peace ; and by exiling 
Nestorius, and by commanding all the Nestorian writings to 
be burnt, he confirmed the principal decision given by the 
Council of Ephesus. 3 

4. The Emperor Marcian consented to the doctrinal de 
crees of the fourth (Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, 
by publishing four edicts on the *7th February, 13th March, 
6th and 28th July 45 2. 4 

5. The close relations existing between the fifth (Ecumenical 
Council and the Emperor Justinian are well known. This 
Council merely carried out and sanctioned what the Emperor 
had before thought necessary and decided ; and it bowed so 
obsequiously to his wishes, that Pope Vigilius would have 
nothing to do with it. The Emperor Justinian sanctioned 
the decrees pronounced by the Council, by sending an official 
to the seventh session, and he afterwards used every endeavour 
to obtain the approbation of Pope Vigilius for this Council. 

6. The Emperor Constantino Pogonatus confirmed the de 
crees of the sixth Council, first by signing them 5 (ultimo loco, 
as we have seen) ; but he sanctioned them also by a very 
long edict which Hardouin has preserved. 6 

7. In the last session of the seventh (Ecumenical Council, 
the Empress Irene, with her son, signed the decrees made in the 
preceding sessions, and thus gave them the imperial sanction. 7 
It is not known whether she afterwards promulgated an 
especial decree to the same effect. 

1 Mansi, v. 255, 659 ; Hard. i. 1667. 2 Mansi, iv. 1465. 

3 Mansi, v. 255, 413, 920. * Hard. ii. 659, 662, 675 s. 

e Hard. iii. 1435. 6 Hard. iii. 1446, 1633. * Hard. ii. 483-486. 



44 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

8. The Emperor Basil the Macedonian and his sons signed 
the acts of the eighth (Ecumenical Council. His signature 
followed that of the patriarchs, and preceded that of the 
other bishops. 1 In 870 he also published an especial edict, 
making known his approval of the decrees of the Council. 2 

The papal confirmation of all these eight first oecumenical 
councils is not so clear and distinct. 

1. The signatures of the Pope s legates, Hosius, Vitus, and 
Vincentius, subscribed to the acts of the Council before the 
other bishops, must be regarded as a sanction from the See of 
Eome to the decrees of Mcsea. Five documents, dating from 

* O 

the fifth century, mention, besides, a solemn approval of the 
acts of the Council of Mcsea, given by Pope Sylvester and a 
Eoman synod of 275 bishops. It is granted that these docu 
ments are not authentic, as we shall show in the history of 
the Council of Mcsea; but we nevertheless consider it very 
probable that the Council of Mcsea was recognised and ap 
proved by an especial act of Pope Sylvester, and not merely 
by the signature of his legates, for the following reasons : 
It is undeniable, as we shall presently see, that 
a. The fourth Oecumenical Council looked upon the papal 
confirmation as absolutely necessary for ensuring the validity 
of the decrees of the Council ; and there is no good ground for 
maintaining that this was a new principle, and one which was 
not known and recognised at the time of the Mcene Council. 
@. Again, in 485, a synod, composed of above forty bishops 
from different parts of Italy, was quite unanimous in assert 
ing, in opposition to the Greeks, that the three hundred and 
eighteen bishops of Mcsea had - their decisions confirmed by 
the authority of the holy Eoman Church (confirmationem rerum 
atque auctoritatem sanctce Romance Ecclesice dctulerunt). 3 

7. Pope Julius I. in the same way declared, a few years 
after the close of the Council of Mcsea, that ecclesiastical 
decrees (the decisions of synods 4 ) ought not to be published 
without the consent of the Bishop of Eome, and that this is 
a rule and a law of the Church. 4 

8. Dionysius the Less also maintained that the decisions of 

1 See above, sec. 5. 2 Hard. v. 935. 

8 Hard. ii. 856. * Socrat. Hist. Eccl ii. 17. 



INTRODUCTION. 45 

the Council of Niccea were sent to Rome for approval ;* and 
it is not improbable that it was the general opinion upon this 
point which contributed to produce those spurious documents 
which we possess. 

2. When the Pope and the "Western bishops heard the de 
crees of the Council of Constantinople, held in 381, subse- 
sequently accepted as the second (Ecumenical Council, they 
expressed in an Italian synod their disapproval of some of 
the steps taken, although they had not then received the 
acts of the Council. 2 Soon after they had received the acts, 
Pope Damasus gave his sanction to the Council. This is the 
account given by Photius. 3 This approval, however, must 
have related only to the Creed of Constantinople ; for the 
canons of this Council were rejected by Pope Leo the Great, 
and subsequently, towards the year 600, still more explicitly 
by Pope Gregory the Great. 4 That the Creed of Constanti 
nople had, however, the approbation of the Apostolic See, is 
shown by the fact that, in the fourth General Council held at 
Chalcedon, the papal legates did not raise the least opposition 
when this creed was quoted as an authority, whilst they pro 
tested most strongly when the canons of Constantinople were 
appealed to. It was, in fact, on account of the creed having 
been approved of by the Holy See, that afterwards, in the 
sixth century, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius II., and Gregory the 
Great, formally declared that this Council was oecumenical, 
although Gregory at the same time refused to acknowledge 
the canons it had promulgated. 

3. The third (Ecumenical Council was held in the time of 
Pope Celestine, and its decisions were signed by his legates, 
S. Cyril, Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Priest 
Philip. 5 Besides this sanction, in the following year Ce- 
lestine s successor, Pope Sixtus in., sanctioned this Council of 
Ephesus in a more solemn manner, in several circular and 
private letters, some of which have reached us. 6 

1 Constant. Epistolce Pontif. Prcef. pp. Ixxxii. Ixxix. ; Hard. i. 311. 

2 Hard. i. 845. 3 De Synodis, in Mansi, iii. 595. 

4 Gregor. Opp. torn. ii. lib. 1 ; Epist. 25, p. 515 ; Leonis i. Eplst. 106 (80), 
ad Anatol. c. 2. See afterwards, in the history of the second (Ecumenical Council. 

5 Hard. i. 1527. 

6 Maiisi, v. 374 sq. ; and Constant. Epist. Pontif. 1231 sq. 



46 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

4. The decisions of the fourth (Ecumenical Council, held at 
Chalcedon, were not only signed by the papal legates present 
at the Council, except the canons, and thus obtained a first 
sanction from the Apostolic See ; but the Council, at the con 
clusion of its sessions, sent all the acts of the Synod to the 
Pope, in order to obtain assent, approval, and confirmation for 
them, as is expressly set forth in the letter written by the 
Synod to the Pope with these acts. We there read : Travav 
VJMV TWV 7r7rpa<yjuLeva)v rr]v Svva/Jiiv eyvwptaa/Aiv et? crva-Tacnv 
rjfjLerepav /cal TWV Trap rj^wv TreTrpay/Jievcov (Seftaiwcnv re /cat 
o-vjKardQecriv [We have made known to you the whole force 
of the things which have been done, in proof of our efforts, and 
in order to the approval and confirmation by you of what we 
have done]. 1 The Emperor Marcian, like the Council, requested 
the Pope to sanction the decrees made at Constantinople in a 
special epistle, which he said would then be read in all the 
churches, that every one might know that the Pope approved 
of the Synod. 2 Finally, the Archbishop of Constantinople, 
Anatolius, expressed himself in a similar way to the Pope. He 
says : " The whole force and confirmation of the acts has been 
reserved for the authority of your Holiness" (Gestorum vis omnis 
d confirmatio auctoritati Vestrce Bcatitudinis fuerit reservata). 3 
However, Pope Leo confirmed only those articles of the 
Council of Chalcedon which concerned the faith: he ex 
pressly rejected the twenty-eighth canon, which granted in 
admissible rights to the Bishop of Constantinople, without 
taking into account the sixth canon of Mcsea. 4 Leo pro 
nounced the same judgment in several letters addressed either 
to the Emperor or to the Empress Pulcheria ; 5 and he charged 
his nuncio at Constantinople, Julian Bishop of Cos, to an 
nounce to the Emperor that the sanction of the Holy See to 
the Council of Chalcedon should be sent to all the bishops 
of the empire. 6 

5. We have already seen 7 that it was after a protracted 

1 Ep. 89 of the collection of S. Leo s letters in the Ballerini edition, i. 
1099. P. 292, ed. Lugd. 1770. 

1 Ep. 110 in the collection of S. Leo s letters, I.e. 1182 sq. 

1 Ep. 132 in letters of S. Leo, i. 263 sq. 

4 Ep. 114 in Balleriui, i. 1193 sq. 

* Ep. 115, 116. 6 Ept 117 . 7 p 



INTRODUCTION. 47 

refusal that Pope Vigilius finally sanctioned the decrees of 
the fifth (Ecumenical Council. We have still two documents 
which refer to this question, a decree sent to S. Eutychius 
Bishop of Constantinople, and the constitution of February 
23, 554. 1 

6. The decisions of the sixth (Ecumenical Council were 
signed and accepted not only by the Pope s legates ; but, like the 
Council of Chalcedon, this Synod also desired a special sanction 
from the Pope, and asked for it in a letter written by the 
Synod to the Pope, whom they name Cctput Ecclesice, and his 
see prima sedes Ecclesice aecumenicce? The successor of Pope 
Agatho, Leo IL, gave this sanction in letters addressed to the 
Emperor and to the bishops of Spain, 3 which still exist. It 
is true that Baronius 4 has endeavoured to prove these letters 
to be spurious, because they also mention the anathema pro 
nounced against Pope Honoring ; but their authenticity can 
not be doubted on good grounds, and it has been successfully 
maintained by others, particularly by Pagi, Dupin, Dom 
Ceillier, Bower, 5 and Natalis Alexander. 6 

*7. As the Pope had co-operated in the convocation of the 
seventh (Ecumenical Council, which was presided over by his 
legates, so it was expressly sanctioned by Hadrian I., as he 
says himself in a letter to Charles the Great. His words are : 
Et ideo ipsam suscepimus synoclumJ However, the Pope would 
not immediately send his sanction of the Council to the Em 
peror of Constantinople, who had asked it of him, because the 
Emperor did not accede to two demands of the See of Eome 
with respect to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchal See, and the 
restitution of the property of the Church. 8 Subsequently 
Pope Hadrian confirmed the sanction which he gave to the 
second Council of Nicsea, by having its acts translated into 
Latin, sending them to the Western bishops, and defending 

1 Hard. iii. 213 sq., 218 sqq. 2 Hard. iii. 1632 E. 

3 Hard. iii. 1469 sqq., 1729 sqq. 4 Ad ann. 683, n. 13 sqq. 

5 Pagi, Grit, in Annal. Baron, ad ann. 683, n. 7 ; Dupin, Nouvelle Biblioth., 
etc., t. vi. p. 67, ed. Mons 1692; liemi Ceillier, Hist, des auteurs sacr&s , 
Bower, Hist, of the Popes,, vol. iv. 108. 

6 1ST. Alex. Hist. Eccl. saec. 7, t. 5, p. 515, ed. 1778. 

7 Hard. iv. 819. 

8 Hard. iv. 819. 



48 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

them against the attacks of the French bishops in the 
" Caroline Books." 1 

8. Finally, the eighth (Ecumenical Council had not merely 
that kind of sanction which is involved in the signatures of 
the Pope s legates at the end of its acts : it desired a more 
solemn and express approbation, 2 and Hadrian n. yielded to 
this desire ; and in his letter addressed to the Emperor, 3 he 
sanctioned the dogmatic part of the decisions of the Synod, 
but noted his dissatisfaction with respect to other points. The 
fact that the Pope confirmed this Council is, moreover, made 
clear by his subsequently having a Latin translation of its 
acts made by the learned abbot and librarian Anastasius, and 
by the fact that Anastasius without hesitation calls it an 
(Ecumenical Council in the preface addressed to the Pope 4 at 
the commencement of his translation. 

It would be superfluous to show that the Popes always 
confirmed the oecumenical councils of later times ; for it is 
universally known that the influence of the Popes in all later 
Western councils has been greater, and that of the Emperor 
less, than in the first eight councils. Popes have often pre 
sided in person over these more recent councils, and then 
they could give their approbation orally. So it was in the 
ninth, the tenth, and the eleventh (Ecumenical Councils : 5 it 
was also the case in all the subsequent ones, except those of 
Basle and Trent ; but the latter asked for and obtained an 
express confirmation from the Pope. 6 Even in the middle 
a^es several distinguished canonists demonstrated with much 

o o 

perspicuity that this papal approbation was necessary for the 
validity of oecumenical councils ; 7 and we shall see the rea 
son for this statement: for the discussion of the celebrated 
question, " Is the Pope superior or inferior to an oecumenical 
council?" necessarily leads us to study more closely the 
relations which obtain between the Pope and the oecumenical 
council. 

1 Hard. iv. 773-820. 2 Hard. v. 933 sqq., especially 935 A. 

3 Hard. v. 938. 4 Hard. v. 749. 

5 Hard. vi. P. ii. 1110, 1213, 1673. 

6 Sess. 25 in Jin.; cf. Hard. x. 192, 198. 
* Hard. ix. 1229, 1273, 1274. 



INTRODUCTION. 49 

SEC. 7. Relation of tlie Pope to the (Ecumenical Council. 

As every one knows, the Councils of Constance and Basle 
asserted the superiority of the oecumenical council to the 
Holy See j 1 and the French theologians placed this proposi 
tion among the quatuor propositiones Cleri Gallicani 2 the so- 
called Gallican Liberties. Other theologians have affirmed 
the contrary, saying that the Pope is superior to an oecume 
nical council : for example, Eoncaglia, in his learned reply to 
Natalis Alexander s dissertation ; 3 also, before Eoncaglia, the 
pros and cons had been disputed at great length and with 
much animation. The Ultramontanes especially relied upon 
the fact that, at the fifth Council of Lateran, 4 Pope Leo de 
clared, without the least opposition in the Synod, that the 
authority of the Pope extended super omnia concilia? The 
Galileans could only reply to this as follows : (.) The Pope, 
it is true, had a document read in the Council which con 
tained this sentence, and it passed without opposition ; but 
the Council did not give any formal decision : it did not make 
a solemn decree of this proposition. (6.) The Pope only 
used this sentence argumentando, and not definiendo, in order 
to use it as a proof, but without giving it as a general pro 
position ; and (c.) it is not certain that the fifth Lateran 
Council should be considered oecumenical. 6 Many maintain 
that Pope Martin v. sanctioned the decree of the Council of 
Constance establishing the superiority of the oecumenical 
council to the Pope, and Eugene IV. also sanctioned a similar 
decree from the Council of Basle. 7 In point of fact, however, 
these two Popes sanctioned only a part of the decrees of the 
Councils of Basle and Constance. As for those of Basle, 

1 Hard. viii. 252, 258, 1318, 1343. 

2 Cf. upon this point the dissertation by El. Dupin, " de Concil d generalis 
supra Romanum ponlificem auctoritate" in his book de Antigua Ecdesiaz Dis- 
ciplina ; and the long dissertation (Diss. iv. ad sec. xv. ) by Natalis Alexander 
in. his Historia Eccl. ix. 286-339, 446-452, ed. Venet. 1778. 

3 It has also been printed in the ninth vol. of N. Alexander, pp. 339-363. 
Cf. also p. 470 sq. 

4 Sess. xi. s Hard. I.e. ix. 1828. 

6 See El. Dupin, I.e. ; and Katalis Alexander, ix. 439. 

7 Nat. Alexander, ix. 289, 425 sq. 

D 



50 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Eugene only sanctioned those which treated of three points, 
viz. the extinction of heresy, the pacification of Christendom, 
and the general reform of the Church in its head and in its 
members. 1 Martin v.* sanctioned only those decrees of the 
Council of Constance which had been made in materiis fidei 
conciliariter et non aliter, nee alio modo 2 Now the decrees in 
question, respecting the superiority of the general council to 
the Pope, have nothing to do with the faith, and were given 
at Constance rather tumultuariter than conciliariter. We may 
add that the Council of Constance did not intend to utter a 
universal truth, but only, with reference to the case before it, 
asserted a superiority over the Pope, and particularly over 
the three Popes who were then contending for sovereign 
power. It was more concerned to solve an entirely peculiar 
question, than to propound a general theory. 3 Finally, it 
must not be forgotten that, on the 4th September 1439, Pope 
Eugene IV. and the Synod of Florence, in an especial con 
stitution, Moses, solemnly rejected the proposition that the 
council is superior to the Pope, a proposition which had just 
been renewed in the thirty-third session of the Council of 
Basle, and had been there made a dogma. 4 

In confining themselves to this question, Is the Pope 
superior or inferior to a general council ? the Gallicans and 
the Ultramontanes 5 did not understand that they were 
keeping on the surface of a very deep question, that of the 
position of the Holy See in the economy of the Catholic 
Church. A much clearer and deeper insight into the ques 
tion has more recently been shown ; and the real question 
may be summed up in the following propositions : An oecu 
menical council represents the whole Church : there must 
therefore be the same relation between the Pope and the 

1 Hard. viii. 1172. * See Preface. 

2 Hard. viii. 899 E, 902 A. Cf. Animadversiones, in Nat, Alex. ix. 361 sq., 
464 sq. 

3 Cf. Animad. in Nat. Alex. ix. 357 sq. 

4 Hard. ix. 1004; and Raynald, ad an. 1439, n. 29. Cf. Nat. Alex. ix. 438 6, 
466 sq. ; BeUarmin. de Condliis, lib. ii. c. 13-19, in the ed. of his Disput. pub 
lished at Ingolstadt, i. 1204 sqq. 

5 Curialisfg is the word used by Hefele, but that in the text is more common 
Riid familiar. ED. 



INTRODUCTION. 5 1 

council as exists between the Pope and the Church. Now, 
is the Pope above or below the Church ? Neither the one 
nor the other. The Pope is in the Church ; he necessarily 
belongs to it ; he is its head and its centre. The Church, 
like the human body, is an organized whole ; and just as the 
head is not superior or inferior to the body, but forms a 
part of it, and is the principal part of it, so the Pope, who is 
the head of the Church, is not superior or inferior to it : he 
is therefore neither above nor below the general council. The 
human organism is no longer a true body, but a lifeless 
trunk, when the head is cut off ; so an assembly of bishops 
is no longer an oecumenical council when it is separated 
from the Pope. It is therefore a false statement of the 
question, to ask whether the Pope is above or below the 
general council. 1 On the other side, we may rightly ask, 
Has an oecumenical council the right to depose the Pope ? 
According to the Synods of Constance and Basle and the Gal- 
licans, the Pope may be deposed for two principal reasons : 
(1) db mores ; (2) db fidem, that is to say, db hceresim. 2 But, 
in reality, heresy alone can constitute a reason for deposition ; 3 
for an heretical Pope has ceased to be a member of the Church : 
he therefore can be its president no longer. But a Pope who 
is guilty ol mores, a sinful Pope, still belongs to the visible 
Church : he must be considered as the sinful and unrighteous 
head of a constitutional kingdom, who must be made as harm 
less as possible, but not deposed. 4 If the question arises of 
several pretenders to the pontifical throne, and it is impossible 
to distinguish which is in the right, Bellarmin says 5 that in 
this case it is the part of the council to examine the claims 
of the pretenders, and to depose those who cannot justify 
their claims. This is what was done by the Council of Con 
stance. In proceeding to this deposition, however, the Council 

1 See Roskovanny, De Primatu, etc., p. 143 sq. ; "Walter, Kirchenrecht, sec. 
158, llth ed. S. 296 ff. 

8 i.e. for immorality or heresy. 

8 Cf. Bellarmin. de Rom. Pontif. lib. ii. c. 30 E ; de Conciliis, lib. ii. c. 19, 
in the Ingolstadt ed. i. 820, 1219 sq. 

4 Cf. Walter, Kirchenrecht ; Bellarmin. De disput. vol. ii. ; de Conciliis, 
lib. ii. c. 19. 

8 De Disput. vol. ii. lib. ii. c. 19. 



52 EISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

lias not tlie authority of an oecumenical council : it cannot 
have that authority until the legitimate Pope enters into rela 
tion with it, and confirms it. The question is evidently only 
of the deposition of a pretender, who has not sufficient claim, 
and not that of a Pope legitimately elected. The Council 
of Constance would not have had any right to depose even 
John xxin. if (a) the validity of this Pope s election had not 
been doubtful, (6) and if he had not been suspected of heresy. 
Besides, he abdicated, thus ratifying the deposition which had 
been pronounced. 1 

We see from these considerations, of what value the sanc 
tion of the Pope is to the decrees of a council. Until the 
Pope has sanctioned these decrees, the assembly of bishops 
which formed them cannot pretend to the authority belonging 
to an oecumenical council, however great a number of bishops 
may compose it ; for there cannot be an oecumenical council 
without union with the Pope. 

g EC> g. Infallibility of (Ecumenical Councils. 

This sanction of, the Pope is also necessary for ensuring 
infallibility to the decisions of the council. According to 
Catholic doctrine, this prerogative can be claimed only for the 
decisions of oecumenical councils, and only for their decisions 
in rebus fidei et morum, not for purely disciplinary decrees. 
This doctrine of the Catholic Church upon the infallibility of 
oecumenical councils in matters of faith and morality, pro 
ceeds from the conviction, drawn from Holy Scripture, that 
the Holy Spirit guides the Church of God (consequently also 
the Church assembled in an oecumenical council), and that He 
keeps it from all error ; 2 that Jesus Christ will be with His 
own until the .end of the world; 3 that the gates of hell (there 
fore the powers of error) will never prevail against the Church. 4 
The apostles evinced their conviction that the Holy Spirit is- 
present in general councils, when they published their decrees 
with this formula, Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis 5 (it seemed 
good to the Holy Ghost and to us), at the Synod held at 

1 Mansi, Nota in Natal. Alex. I.e. scholion. ii. 286. 

2 John xvi. 13, xiv. 26. 3 Matt, xxviii. 20. 
Matt. xvi. 18. 6 Acts xv. 28. 



INTRODUCTION. 5 3 

Jerusalem. The Church, sharing this conviction of the 
apostles, has always taught that the councils are infallible in 
rebus field et morum, and has considered all those who did 
not believe in this infallibility to be heretics, and separate 
from the Church. Constantine the Great called the decrees 
of the Synod of JSTicsea a divine commandment (Oeiav ev- 
ro\r)v ). 1 Athanasius, in his letter to the bishops of Africa, 
exclaimed : " What God hath spoken through the Council of 
Mcsea endureth for ever." S. Ambrose is so thoroughly con 
vinced of the infallibility of the general council, that he 
writes : " Seqiior tractatum Nicceni concilii a quo me nee mors 
nee glaclius poterit scparare " 2 (I follow the guidance of the 
Nicene Council, from which neither death nor sword will be 
able to separate me). Pope Leo the Great, speaking of his 
explanation respecting the two natures in Jesus Christ, says 
expressly that it has already been corroborated by the " con- 
scnsu irrctractdbili" of the Council of Chalcedon ; 3 and in 
another letter, " non posse inter catholicos reputari, qui rcsis- 
tunt Nicceno vel Chalcedonensi concilio " (that they cannot be 
counted among Catholics who resist the Council of Nicsea or 
Chalcedon). Pope Leo again says in this same letter, that 
the decrees of Chalcedon were given " instruente Spiritu 
sancto" and that they are rather divine than human decrees. 6 

Bellarmin 6 and other theologians quote a great number of 
other texts, drawn from the works of the Fathers, which prove 
that this belief in the infallibility of oecumenical councils has 
always been part of the Church s creed. We select from 
them this of Gregory the Great : " I venerate the four first 
oecumenical councils equally with the four Gospels" 7 (sicut 
qiiatuor Evangdia). Bellarmin 8 as well as Steph. Wiest 9 have 
refuted every objection which can be brought. against the infal 
libility of oecumenical councils. 

The same infallibility must be accorded to councils which 

1 Euseb. Vita Const, in. 20. 2 Ep. 21. 

3 Ep. 65, ad Theodoret. 4 Ep. 78, ad Leon. August. 

6 Hard. ii. 702. 6 Dvsp. vol. ii. ; de Cone. lib. ii. c. 3 

7 Lib. i. c. 24. 

8 Bellar. Disput. vol. ii. ; de Condi, lib. iii. c. 6-9. 
8 Demonstratio religionis Cath. iii. 542 sq. 



54 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

are not oecumenical, when their decrees have received the 
sanction of the Pope, and been accepted by the whole Church, 
The only formal difference, then, existing between these coun 
cils and those which are oecumenical is this, that all the 
bishops of the Church were not invited to take part in them. 1 

SEC. 9. Appeal from the Pope to an (Ecumenical Council. 

The question, whether one can appeal from the decision of a 
Pope to that of an oecumenical council, is highly important, and 
has often been ventilated. Pope Celestine I., as early as the 
fifth century, declared that such an appeal was inadmissible. 2 
It is true that, in the first centuries, questions were often con 
sidered by the councils which had before been decided by the 
Pope ; but, as Peter de Marca has shown, that was not an ap 
peal properly so called. He also shows that the Emperor 
Frederick n. was the first who formally appealed from the de 
cision of a Pope to that of a general council. 3 Pope Martin v., 
and subsequently Pope Pius II., 4 were led again to prohibit 
these appeals, because they recurred too often, and especially 
on account of the exorbitant demands of the Council of Con 
stance. 5 Julius II. and Paul v. renewed these prohibitions in 
the sixteenth century. In 1717 a great sensation was caused 
by the appeal of many Jansenists to a general council against 
the Bull Unigenitus of Pope Clement XL But in his brief 
Pastorates officii the Pope threatened with excommunication 
every one who promoted the appeal, and did not sign the Bull 
Unigenitus ; and also compelled the abandonment of the 
appeal, and the dispersion of the appealing party. Even the 
Protestant historian Mosheim wrote against this appeal, and 
plainly showed the contradiction there was between it and 
the Catholic principle of the unity of the Church ; 6 and 
indeed it must be confessed, that to appeal from the Pope to 

1 Bellarmin. I.e. lib. ii. c. v.-x. 2 C. 16 and 17 ; Causa ix. q. 3. 

3 De Marca, de Concord, sacerd. et imperil, lib. iv. c. 17. 

4 Cf. the bull of Pius n. dated Jan. 18, 1459. 

5 De Marca, de Concord, sacerd. et imperil, lib. iv. c. 17 ; and Schrockh, 
Kircliengesch. Bd. 32, S. 223 and 227. 

5 Mosheim, de Gallorum appellationibus ad concilium, universes Ecclesice, 
unitatem Ecdesice spectabilis tollentibus, in the first vol. of his Dissert, ad Hist. 
Eccl. p. 577 sq[. 



INTRODUCTION. 5 5 

a council, an authority usually very difficult to constitute and 
to consult, is simply to cloak ecclesiastical insubordination by 
a mere formality. 1 

SEC. 1 0. Number of the (Ecumenical Councils. 

Bellarmin reckons eighteen oecumenical councils as univer 
sally acknowledged ; 2 but on the subject of the fifth Lateran 
Council, he says that it was doubted by many : "Au fuerit vere 
generale ; icleo usque ad hanc diem qucestio superest, etiam inter 
catholicos"* Some historians have also raised doubts as to the 
oecumenical character of the Council held at Vienne in 1311. 
There are therefore only the following sixteen councils which 
are recognised without any opposition as oecumenical : 

1. That of Nicseain 325. 

2. The first of Constantinople in 381. 

3. That of Ephesus in 431. 

4. That of Chalcedon in 451. 

5. The second of Constantinople in 553. 

6. The third of Constantinople in 680. 

7. The second of Nicsea in 787. 

8. The fourth of Constantinople in 869. 

9. The first Lateran in 1123. 

10. The second Lateran in 1139. 

11. The third Lateran in 1179. 

12. The fourth Lateran in 1215. 

13. The first of Lyons in 1245. 

14. The second of Lyons in 1274. 

15. That of Florence in 1439. 

16. That of Trent, from 1545 to 156 3. 

The oecumenical character of the following synods is con 
tested : 

1. That of Sardica, about 343-344. 

2, That in Trullo, or the Quinisext, in 692. 
3 That of Vienne in 1311. 

1 Cf. Walter, Kirchenr. I.e. 158; and Ferraris, JBibliotheca prompta, etc., 
6.v. Appellatio. 
8 De Concll. lib. i. c. 5. 3 De Condi, lib. ii. c. 15. 



56 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

4. That of Pisa in 1409. 

5. That of Constance, from 1414 to 141 8. 

6. That of Basle, from 1431 to 1439. 

7. The fifth Lateran, from 1512 to 151 7. 

We have elsewhere 1 considered whether the Synod of Sardica 
can lay claim to the title of oecumenical, and we will again take 
up the question at the proper time. We may here recapitu 
late, in five short propositions, the result of our researches : 

a. The history of the Council of Sardica itself furnishes no 
reason for considering it to be oecumenical. 

b. No ecclesiastical authority has declared it to be so. 

c. We are not. therefore obliged to consider it to be oecume 
nical ; but we must also add, 

d. That it was very early, and has been in all ages, highly 
esteemed by the orthodox Church. 

e. Besides, it is of small importance to discuss its oecu 
menical character, for it gave no decree in rebus fidei, and 
therefore issued no decisions with the stamp of infallibility. 
As for disciplinary decrees, whatever council promulgates 
them, they are subject to modification in the course of time : 
they are not irreformable, as are the doctrinal decrees of 
oecumenical councils. 

The Trullan Council, also called the Quinisext, is con 
sidered to be oecumenical by the Greeks only. The Latins 
could not possibly have accepted several of its decrees, which 
are drawn up in distinct opposition to the Eoman Church : 
for instance, the thirteenth canon, directed against the celibacy 
observed in the West ; the thirty-sixth canon, on the equal 
rank of the Bishops of Constantinople and of Borne; and the 
fifty-fifth canon, which forbids the Saturday s fast. 2 

The Council of Vienne is generally considered to be the 
fifteenth (Ecumenical Council, and Bellarmin also accedes to 
this. 3 The Jesuit Damberger, in his Synchronical History of 
tlie Middle Ages, expresses a different opinion. 4 " Many his- 

1 Tulinger Quartalschrift, 1852, S. 399-415. 

2 Cf. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl sec. vii. vol. v. p. 528. Bellarmin. I.e. 7. 
8 De Condi, lib. i. c. 5. 
4 Synchronistische Geschkhte des Mittdalters, Bd. xiii. S. 177 f. 



INTRODUCTION. 5 7 

torians," lie says, " especially French historians, consider this 
Council to be one of the most famous, the most venerable, 
and the most important which has been held, and regard it 
as the fifteenth (Ecumenical. The enemies of the Church will 
gladly accept such an opinion. It is true that Pope Clement V. 
wished to call an oecumenical council, and of this the Bull of 
Convocation speaks ; but Boniface vm. had also the same 
desire, and yet no one would give such a name to the assembly 
which he opened at Eome on the 13th October 1302. It is 
also true that, after the bishops of all countries have been 
summoned, the title and weight of an oecumenical council 
cannot be refused to a synod under the pretext that many 
bishops did not respond to the invitation ; but the name 
demands at least that the assembly should be occupied with 
the common and universal concerns of the Church that they 
should come to decisions which should then be promulgated 
for the obedience of the faithful. Now," says Damberger, 
" nothing of all this took place at the Council of Vienne." 
We reply, that this last statement is a mistake. The Council 
promulgated a whole series of decrees, which in great measure 
relate to the whole Church, and not merely to one province 
only for example, those concerning the Templars ; and these 
decrees were certainly published. Moreover, the fifth Lateran 
Council, which we admit to be oecumenical, spoke of that of 
Vienne, in its eighth session, as a generate} A different 
judgment must be given respecting the Council of Pisa, held 
in 1409. It was naturally from the beginning considered to 
be without weight or authority by the partisans of the two 
Popes whom it deposed, viz. Gregory xn. and Benedict xin. 2 
The Carthusian Boniface Ferrer, brother to S. Vincent Ferrer, 
and legate of Benedict xm. at this Synod, called it an heretical 
and diabolical assembly. But its character as oecumenical has 
also been questioned by those who took no part for either of the 
two antipopes by Cardinal de Bar, and a little subsequently 
by S. Antonine Archbishop of Florence. 3 We might add to 
these many friends of reform, like Nicholas of Clemonge and 

1 Hard. ix. 1719. 2 Baynald. Contin. Annal. Baron, ad an. 1409, n. 74. 

3 Cf. Bellarmin, de Condi, lib. i. c. 8 ; Mansi, Collect, Condi, xxvi. 1160 ; 
and Lenfant, Hist, du Condle de Pise, p. 303 sq. 



58 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Tlieodoric of Brie, who were dissatisfied with it. Gerson, 
on the contrary, who about this time wrote his book De 
Auferibilitate Papce. defended the decrees of the Council of 
Pisa. Almost all the Gallicans have tried, as he did, to give 
an oecumenical character to this Council, because it was the 
first to make use of the doctrine of the superiority of a general 
council to the Pope. 1 But in order that a council should be 
oecumenical, it must be recognised as such by the whole of 
Christendom. Now, more than half the bishops of Christendom 
(episcopatus dispersus), as well as whole nations, have protested 
against its decisions, and would not receive them. Tor this 
reason, neither ecclesiastical authority nor the most trust 
worthy theologians have ever numbered it among the oecume 
nical councils. 2 It must also be said that some Ultramontanes 
have had too little regard for this Council, in saying that the 
election made by it of Pope Alexander v. was valueless, and 
that Gregory xii. was still the legitimate Pope until his volun 
tary abdication in 1415. 3 

The Gallicans were very anxious to prove the Council of 
Constance to be oecumenical. It is true that it was assem 
bled in a regular manner; but, according to the principles 
we have explained above, it necessarily lost its oecumenical 
character as long as it was separated from the head of 
the Church. The sessions, however, which were held after 
the election of Pope Martin v., and with his consent and 
approbation that is, sessions 42 to 45 must be considered 
as those of an oecumenical council. The same consideration 
must be given to the decrees of the earlier sessions, which 
concern the faith (res fidei), and were given conciliariter as 
they were approved by Pope Martin v. There was no special 
enumeration of them given by the Pope ; but he evidently 

1 We may name Edmund Richer, Historia Condi, gen. lib. ii. c. 2, sec. 6 ; 
Bossuet, Defensio cleri gallic. P. ii. lib. ix. c. 11 j N. Alex. Hist. Ecd, sec. xv. 
et xvi. diss. ii. vol. ix. p. 267 sq. 

8 Cf. Animadversiones, by Eoncaglia, in Natal. Alex. I.e. p. 276 sq. 

3 This is the opinion of Raynald in his Contin. Annalium Baron, ad ann. 
1409, n. 79-81, and of Peter Ballerini, de Potestate ecclesiastica summorum 
Pontificum et Condi, gen. c. 6. Bellarmin, on the contrary, considers Alex 
ander v. as the legitimate Pope, and calls the Council of Pisa a " concilium 
generate nee approbation nee reprolatum." 



INTRODUCTION. 59 

intended those condemning the heresies of Huss and Wickliffe. 
Katalis Alexander endeavours to show that this sanction also 
comprehended the fourth and fifth sessions, and their decrees 
establishing the superiority of councils over the Pope. 1 But 
Eoncaglia has refuted his opinion, and maintained the right 
view of the matter, which we have already asserted. 2 As for 
those who entirely refuse an oecumenical character to the 
Council of Constance in all its parts, it suffices for their 
refutation to recall, besides the approbation of Martin v., what 
Pope Eugene IV. wrote on the 22d July 1446 to his legates in 
Germany : " Ad imitationem ss. PP. et prcedecessorum nostrorum, 
sicut illi generalia concilia venerari consueverunt, sic generalia 
concilia Constantiense et Basileense ab ejus initio usgue ad trans- 
lationem per nos factam, absgue tamen prcejudicio juris, digni- 
tatis et prce-eminentice S. Sedis apostolicce . . . cum omni 
reverentia et devotione suscipimits, complectimur et veneramur" 
[In imitation of the most holy Popes our predecessors, as 
they have been wont to venerate general councils, so do we 
receive with all reverence and devotion, embrace and venerate 
the General Councils of Constance and Basle, yet without 
prejudice to the right, dignity, and pre-eminence of the Holy 
Apostolic See]. The moderate Gallicans maintain that the 
Council of Basle was oecumenical until its translation to 
Ferrara, and that it then lost this character ; for it would be 
impossible to consider as oecumenical the concilidbulum which 
remained behind at Basle, and was continued later at Lau 
sanne under the antipope Felix v. 4 Edmund Eicher 5 and the 
advanced Gallicans, on the contrary, consider the whole of the 
Council of Basle to be oecumenical, from its stormy beginning 
to its inglorious end. Other theologians, on the contrary, 
refuse this character to the Council of Basle in all its sessions. 
This is the opinion of Bellarmin, Eoncaglia, and L. Holstenius. 6 

1 Hist. Eccl. sec. xv. diss. iv. pp. 289, 317. 

2 Roncagl. Animadv. ad Nat. Alex. Hist. Ecd. I.e. pp. 361, 359. 

J Roncagl. I.e. p. 465 ; Raynald. Cont. Annal. Baron, ad an. 1446, n. 3. 

4 Nat. Alex. I.e. ix. 433 sq. 

5 Hist. Condi, gener. lib. iii. c. vii. 

B Bell. De Condi, lib. 1. c. vii. ; Roncaglia, in his Animadversiones in Nat. 
Alex. I.e. p. 461 ; and Lucas Holstenius, in a special diss. inserted in Mansi, 
xxix. 1222 sq. 



60 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

According to Gieseler, 1 Bellarmin has given the title of oecu 
menical to the Council of Basle in another passage of his 
celebrated Disputationes? This is not so. Bellarmin says 
that the Council of Basle was legitimate at its opening, that 
is to say, so long as the papal legate and a great number of 
bishops were present ; but subsequently, when it deposed the 
Pope, it was only a condlicibulum schismaticum, seditiosum, et 
nullius prorsus auctoritatis. It was by Bellarmin s advice 
that the acts of the Council of Basle were not included in 
the collection of oecumenical councils made at Eome in 1609. 

Those who are absolutely opposed to the Council of Basle, 
and refuse the oecumenical character to all its sessions, give the 
following reasons : 

a. There was only a very small number of bishops (7-8) 
at the first sessions of this Synod, and therefore one cannot 
possibly consider it to be an oecumenical council. 

I. Before its second session, this Council, promising no 
good results, was dissolved by Pope Eugene IV. 

c. From this second session, according to the undeniable 
testimony of history, the assembly was ruled by passion ; its 
members were embittered against each other ; business was 
not carried on with becoming calmness, but in the midst of 
complete anarchy; the bishops secretaries spoke and shouted 
in the sessions, as ^Eneas Sylvius and others testify. 3 

d. Eugene iv. did certainly at a later period, after the 
fifteenth session, confirm all that had been done in the pre 
ceding ; but this confirmation was extorted from him when he 
was ill, and by the threat that, if he did not consent to give 
it, he should lose the adherence of the princes and cardinals, 
and be deposed from the papal chair. 4 

e. This confirmation has no value, even supposing that the 
Pope gave it in full consciousness, and with entire freedom ; 
for it was only signed by him on condition that the members 
of the Council of Basle should repeal all the decrees which 
they had given against the authority of the Pope, which they 
never did. 5 

1 Kircliengesch. Bd. ii. 4, S. 52. 2 De Eccl Milit. lib. iii. c. 16. 

3 Cf. Roncagl. Animadver. I.e. p. 463 A. 

4 Cf. Turrecremata, in Roncaglia, Lc. p. 4G3 A. 5 Hard. viii. 157 B, C. 



INTRODUCTION. 6 1 

/. Tlie Pope simply allowed the Council to continue its 
sessions, and he withdrew his bull of dissolution again ; but 
these concessions imply no sanction of what the Council had 
done in its preceding sessions, and the Pope took care to declare 
this himself. 1 

It appears to us to be going too far to refuse an oecumenical 
character to the whole Council of Basle. The truth, accord 
ing to our view, lies between this opinion and that of the 
moderate Gallicans in this way : 

a. The Council of Basle was a true one from the first 
session to the twenty-fifth inclusive, that is, until its transla 
tion from Basle to Ferrara. 

I. In these twenty-five sessions we must accept as valid 
only such decrees as treat, 1st, Of the extinction of heresy ; 
2d, Of the pacification of Christendom ; 3d, Of the refor 
mation of the Church in its head and in its members ; and 
always on condition that these decrees are not prejudicial to 
the papal power, and are approved by the Pope. 

Our authority for the establishment of these two proposi 
tions is Pope Eugene IV. himself, who, in a bull read during 
the sixteenth session of the Council of Basle, sanctions those 
decrees of the preceding sessions which treat of these three 
points. In the letter already mentioned, which he wrote on 
the 22d July 1446 to his legates in Germany, he says: " As 
my predecessors have venerated the ancient councils (evidently 
meaning oecumenical councils), so do I receive cum omni 
reverentia et devotione, etc., the General Councils of Constance 
and Basle, and this latter db ejus initio usque ad translationem 
per nos factam, absque tamen prcejudicio juris, dignitatis et 
prce-eminentice, S. Sedis apostolicce ac potestatis sibi et in eadem 
canonice sedentibus concessce" 2 

But it is asked whether this acceptance be admissible, 
whether ecclesiastical authority had not already broken the 
staff over the whole Council of Basle. A passage in a bull 
published by Pope Leo x., in the eleventh session of the fifth 
(Ecumenical Lateran Council, has been made use of for the 
support of this objection. It is as follows : " Cum ea oninia 

1 Cf. Turrecremata in Eoncaglia, I.e. p. 464, b. 

8 Cf. Koncaglia, I.e. p. 465, a ; Raynald ad. an. 1446, n. 3. 



62 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

post translationem efusdem Basileensis Concilii a 

Basileensi coiwilicibulo seu, potius conventicula qiu% prcesertim 
post hujusmocli translationem concilium amplius appellari non 
merebatur, facta exstiterint ac propterea nullum robur Jidbue- 
rint" In this passage Pope Leo x. condemns what was 
resolved during the latter sessions of the Council of Basle, 
and which was taken into the pragmatic sanction of Bourges 
in 1438; and on this occasion he speaks of the Council of 
Basle in a very unfavourable manner. But apart from the 
fact that we might allege against this passage, which asserts 
the superiority of the Pope over a general council, what the 
Gallicans have already adduced against it, we will observe : 
(a.) Even in this passage Pope Leo distinguishes between the 
Council of Basle, the assembly held before the translation, and 
the conciliabulum which began after the translation. (&.) It is 
true that he does not speak favourably of the Council itself, 
and the word prcesertim seems to imply blame ; but the Pope s 
language can be easily explained, if we reflect that he has 
in view the decrees which diminish the power of the Pope, 
decrees which were afterwards inserted in the pragmatic 
sanction. He might therefore speak unfavourably of these 
decisions of the Council of Basle, as Pope Eugene IV. did, 
without rejecting the whole Synod of Basle. 

It must also be understood in what sense Father Ulrich 
Mayr of Kaisersheim was condemned by Pope Clement xiv., 
viz. for maintaining that the twenty-five first sessions of the 
Council of Basle had the character and weight of sessions of 
an oecumenical council. 2 The opinion of Mayr is very different 
from ours : we do not accept all the decrees of the twenty-five 
first sessions, but only those which can be accepted under the 
conditions enumerated above. 

Some theologians, particularly Gallicans, since the time of 
Louis xiv., 3 will not recognise the fifth Lateran Council as 
oecumenical, on account of the small number of its members ; 
but the true reason for their hostility against this Council is 
that, in union with the Crown of France, it abolished the 
pragmatic sanction of Bourges, which asserted the liberties of 

Hard. ix. 1828. 2 Walcli, Neuste BeUgions-gescJuchte, Bd. v. S. 245. 

3 Cf. Dupin, de Antiqua Ecdesice, Disciplina, p. 344. 



INTKODUCTIOX. 63 

the Galilean Church, and concluded another concordat. These 
attacks cannot, however, be taken into consideration : for the 
great majority of Catholic theologians consider this Council 
to be oecumenical ; and even France, at an earlier period, 
recognised it as such. 1 Here, then, we offer a corrected table 
of the oecumenical councils : 

1. That of Nicseain 325. 

2. The first of Constantinople in 381. 

3. That of Ephesus in 431. 

4. That of Chalcedon in 451. 

5. The second of Constantinople in 553. 

6. The third of Constantinople in 680. 

7. The second of Nicaea in 787. 

8. The fourth of Constantinople in 869. 

9. The first of Lateran in 1123. 

10. The second of Lateran in 1139. 

11. The third of Lateran in 1179. 

12. The fourth of Lateran in 1215. 

13. The first of Lyons in 1245. 

14. The second of Lyons in 1274. 

15. That of Vienne in 1311. 

16. The Council of Constance, from 1414 to 1418; that 
is to say : (&.) The latter sessions presided over by Martin v. 
(sessions 4145 inclusive) ; (7>.) In the former sessions all the 
decrees sanctioned by Pope Martin v., that is, those concern 
ing the faith, and which were given conciliariter. 

17. The Council of Basle, from the year 1431; that is 
to say : (a) The twenty-five first sessions, until the transla 
tion of the Council to Ferrara by Eugene IV. ; (&.) In these 
twenty-five sessions the decrees concerning the extinction of 
heresy, the pacification of Christendom, and the general refor 
mation of the Church in its head and in its members, and 
which, besides, do not strike at the authority of the apostolic 
chair ; in a word, those decrees which were afterwards sanc 
tioned by Pope Eugene IV. 

17&. The assemblies held at Ferrara and at Florence 
(143842) cannot be considered as forming a separate oecu 
menical council. They were merely the continuation of the 

1 Cf. Roncaglia in N. Alex. I.e. p. 470. 



64 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Council of Basle, which, was transferred to Ferrara by Eugene 
IV. on the 8th January 1438, and from thence to Florence in 
January 1439. 

18. The fifth of Lateran, 1512-17. 

19. The Council of Trent, 1545-63. 

SEC. 11. Customs observed in (Ecumenical Councils with respect 
to Signatures, Precedence, Manner of Voting, etc. 

In some countries for instance, in Africa the bishops 
held rank in the councils according to the period of their 
consecration ; in other parts they ranked according to the 
episcopal see which they filled. The priests and deacons repre 
senting their absent bishop occupied the place belonging to 
that bishop in those councils which were held in the East ; 
but in the West this custom was not generally followed. 
In the Spanish councils the priests always signed after the 
bishops. The Council of Aries (A.D. 314), in the signatures 
to which we cannot remark any order, decided that if a 
bishop brought several clerics with him (even in minor 
orders), they should give their signatures immediately after 
their bishop, and before the bishop who followed. The order 
of the signatures evidently indicates also the order of pre 
cedence. This Council of Aries gives an exception to this 
rule, for the Pope s legates the two priests Claudian and 
Vitus 1 signed only after several bishops ; whilst in all the 
other councils, and even in the Eastern, the legates always 
signed before all the other bishops and the patriarchs, even 
though they were but simple priests. 2 

In the thirteenth century Pope Clement IV. ordained that, 
in order to distinguish the bishops from the exempt abbots in 
the synods, the latter should only have mitres bordered with 
gold, without pearls, without precious stones, or gold plates. 
The abbots who were not " exempt" were only to have white 
mitres, without borders. 3 

The members of the councils ordinarily were seated in the 

1 Hard. i. 266. 

2 See above, p. 27 f., on what we have said with regard to the president at the 
oecumenical councils. 

3 Salmon, TraAtt de I Etude des Conciles, 1726, p. 860. 



INTRODUCTION. 6 5 

form of a circle, in the centre of which was placed the book 
of the Holy Scriptures. There were added also sometimes the 
collections of the ecclesiastical canons, and the relics of the 
saints. Behind each bishop was generally seated the priest 
who accompanied him ; the deacon used to sit lower, on one 
side, or before the bishop. 1 

With respect to the ceremonies at the opening of the 
ancient Spanish councils, we have an order of the fourth 
Council of Toledo, which met in 633 (can. 4), which pre 
scribed as follows : " Before sunset on the day appointed 
(May 1 8), all those who are in the church must come out ; 
and all the doors must be shut, except the one by which the 
bishops enter, and at this door all the ostiarii (porters) will 
station themselves. The bishops will then come and take 
their places, according to the times of their ordination. When 
they have taken their places, the elected priests, and after 
them the deacons, will come in their turn to take their places. 
The priests sit behind the bishops ; the deacons are in front ; 
and all are seated in the form of a circle. Last of all, those 
laity are introduced whom the council by their election have 
judged worthy of the favour. The notaries who are necessary 
are also introduced. 

"All keep silence. When the archdeacon says, Let us 
pray (orate), all prostrate themselves upon the ground. After 
several moments, one of the oldest bishops rises and recites a 
prayer in a loud voice, during which all the rest remain on 
their knees. The prayer having been recited, all answer 
AMEN; and they rise when the archdeacon says, Stand 
up (erigite vos). While all keep silent, a deacon, clad in a 
white alb, brings into the midst the Book of the Canons, and 
reads the rules for the holding of councils. When this is 
ended, the metropolitan gives an address, and calls on those 
present to bring forward their complaints. If a priest, a 
deacon, or a layman has any complaint to make, he makes it 
known to the archdeacon of the metropolitan church ; and the 
latter, in his turn, will bring it to the knowledge of the 
council. No bishop is to withdraw without the rest, and no 
one is to pronounce the council dissolved before all the busi- 

1 Salmon, Ic. p. 861. 
E 



6 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

ness is ended." The Synod concluded with, a ceremony 
similar to that of the opening ; the metropolitan then pro 
claimed the time of celebrating Easter, and that of the meeting 
of the next synod, and some bishops were chosen to assist the 
metropolitan at Christmas and Easter. 1 

Before the Council of Constance, they voted by numbers in 
all the councils ; but at that Council, to neutralize the advan 
tage the Italian prelates derived from their large number, the 
votes were given by nations. Five nations Italy, France, 
Germany, England, and Spain each had right to one vote ; 
and within the nation they of course voted by numbers. 
Another arrangement was introduced into the Council. They 
divided, without distinctions of nationality, all who were 
present at the Synod into four great commissions of the 
Faith, of the Peace, of the Eeform of the Church, and of 
general business. Each commission had its own president, 
and they combined the commissions three times a week. 
When a commission had made a decree, it was communi 
cated to the other three ; and if it was approved by three 
commissions at the least, it was announced as a decree of 
the Synod by the president of the Council in a genera] 



session. 2 



In the councils which followed that of Basle this manner 
of voting was abandoned ; and when, at the commencement 
of the Council of Trent, the Pope s legates asked if they would 
vote by nations or by heads, the latter was the method which 
was recommended, as being the most conformable to the tradi 
tions of the Church. This is at least what Sarpi 3 and Palla- 
vicini 4 relate. Sarpi adds, that several Fathers of the Council 
of Trent actually demanded to vote by nations; but this 
statement is- refuted by Pallavicini, who proves that no one 
made that demand, and that the question asked by the legates 
was simply a prudential measure. 5 The Council of Trent 
introduced a practice which was a departure from ancient 
custom. In the ancient councils the discussions upon the 
decrees to be promulgated took place during the sessions 

1 Hard. i. 6 sqq., iii. 580. 2 Hard. viii. 1439. 3 ii. 29. 4 vi. 4, n. 9. 
5 See Brischar, Beurtheilung der Controversen Sarpis und Pallav. Bd. i. 
S. 151 f. 



INTRODUCTION. 6 



<- 



themselves ; and the acts of these councils contain discussions 
of great length. In the Council of Trent, on the contrary, 
each matter was first carefully discussed in particular com 
missions ; and when all was ready, and in fact decided upon, 
they presented the decree to the general session for confirma 
tion. The acts of the Council of Trent, for this reason, 
contain no discussions, but only decrees, etc. 

The decisions of the synods were regularly published in 
the name of the synod itself ; but sometimes, when the Pope 
presided, the decrees were published in the form of papal 
decrees, with the addition of the formula : " with the appro 
bation of the sacred oecumenical council" (sacra universali 
synodo approbante). This took place at the third, the fourth, 
and the fifth Lateran Councils, and in part also at the Council 
of Constance. 1 

SEC. 12. Histories of the Councils. 

James Merlin, canon and chief penitentiary of the metro 
politan church of Paris, was the first who had a collection of 
the acts of the councils published. This edition, naturally 
very incomplete, appeared at Paris in 1523, in one folio 
volume, in two parts. A second impression was published at 
Ivoln in 1530, enriched by two documents, the golden bull 
of Charles IV., and the bull of Pius n. in which he for 
bade an appeal from the Pope to an oecumenical council. 
The third edition, in octavo, published at Paris in 1536, 
had no additions. Like all the collections of the councils 
which have been made after it, with the exception of the 
Koman edition of 1609, the edition of Merlin contained, with 
the acts of the oecumenical councils, those of several provin 
cial synods, as well as many papal decretals. It may be men 
tioned that this alone had the collection of the false Isidorian 
Decretals printed in a continuous form, whilst in the more 
recent collections they are distributed in chronological order, 
assigning to each council or each Pope the part attributed to 
him by the pseudo-Isidore. 2 

1 Hard. vi. P. ii. 1674 ; vii. 18, 24 ; ix. 1613, 1618, 1677, etc. 

2 The longest details on Merlin s edition are found in the work of Salmon, 
doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, Traite de V Etude des Condles et de leurs 



68 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

In 1538 there appeared at Koln a second collection of 
the acts of the councils (two volumes folio), fuller than that 
of Merlin. It was published by the Belgian Franciscan, 
Peter Crabbe, 1 who, to make it more complete, had searched 
in no less than five hundred libraries. The second edition, 
enlarged, dated 1551, is in three folio volumes. 2 Lawrence 
Servius, the celebrated convert and Carthusian, 3 published at 
Koln another and somewhat more complete collection of the 
councils in 1657, in four folio volumes ; and the printer, 
Dominic Nicolini, put forth at Venice, in 1585, with the 
assistance of the Dominican Dominic Bollanus, a new im 
pression, in five volumes folio. 4 

Professor Severin Binius, canon of Koln, surpassed his pre 
decessors by publishing another collection of the councils, in 
four volumes folio, in 1606. The text of the councils was 
enriched by historical and critical notes, taken for the most 
part from Baronius. The two later editions, which were pub 
lished in 1618 and 1636, are still better than the first. The 
latter was published at Paris by Charles Morel, in nine 
volumes, 5 as the Roman collection of the acts of the councils 
could here be made use of. This Eoman collection contained 
only the acts of the oecumenical councils. It consisted of 
four folio volumes, and was compiled between 1608 and 1612 
under the authority of Pope Paul v. This work gave for the 
first time the original Greek text of many of the synodal acts, 
copied from the manuscripts of the Vatican and other MSS. G 
The learned Jesuit Sirmond was the principal author of this 
collection ; he wrote the interesting introduction which was 
prefixed to the whole work. At the beginning of the acts of 
each council there is a succinct but by no means worthless 
history of that council in Latin, which has been inserted into 

collections, etc., nouvelle edition, Paris 1726, pp. 288 sq. and 724. In this 
last passage Salmon points out the faults of Merlin s collections. 

1 Pierre Grable in Fr. transl. ED. 

2 On its character and defects, see Salmon, I.e. p. 291, etc., and 728-740. 

3 He was born at Liibeck. 

4 Salmon, I.e. pp. 296 sq. and 743-752. 

5 On the character and the defects of the edition of Binius, see Salmon, I.e. 
pp. 300, 756-769. 

6 Salmon, I.e. pp. 301, 752 sqq. 



INTRODUCTION. 6 9 

several other more modern collections, in particular, into 
that of Mansi. 1 We have already said that, by the advice of 
Bellarmin, the acts of the Synod of Basle were not admitted 
into this collection. 

This Eoman edition has served as a basis for all subsequent 
editions : these have added the acts of the national and pro 
vincial synods, besides the most important edicts and decrees 
of the Popes, all of them avoiding several faults and several 
singularities of the Eoman editors. 2 In these more recent 
editions the text has often also been improved by the study of 
various MSS., and has been enriched by many fragments and 
original documents which were wanting in the Koman edition. 

The first collection which was made after the Eoman col 
lection is the Collectio Regia, which appeared at Paris in 1644 
at the royal printing press, in thirty-seven folio volumes. 3 

The printing and all the material part is magnificent, but 
the same praise cannot be awarded to the editing ; for even 
those faults of the Eoman edition which had been pointed out 
by Father Sirmond still remained uneorrected. In spite of 
the great number of its volumes, the royal edition is nearly 
one-fourth less complete than that of the Jesuit Philip Labbe 
(Labbeus) of Bourges. Labbe died in 1667, whilst he was 
labouring on the ninth and tenth volumes of his collection ; 
but Father Gabriel Cossart, a member of the same order, con 
tinued his work, which appeared at Paris in 1674. 4 Stephen 
Baluze wished to add to this edition a supplement which 
would contain four volumes in folio, but only one volume has 
seen the light. 5 Almost all the French savans quote from 
this edition of Labbe s with Baluze s supplement, making 
use of all these works, and consulting, besides, a very large 
number of MSS. John Hardouin, a Jesuit, gave a new Con- 
ciliorum Collectio rcgia maxima ad P. Labbei et P. Gabridis Cos- 
sarti . . . Icibores hand inodica accessione facia, etc. 6 Hardouin 

1 It is not found in that of Hardouin. 

2 Salmon, I.e. p. 302. 3 Salmon, I.e. pp. 305, 769 sqq. 

4 Seventeen vols. in folio ; Salmon, I.e. pp. 306, 772, 784. 

5 Paris 1683 (another edition in 1707), under the title, Nova Collectio Con- 
ciliorum: Supplementum Conciliorum Labbei. Cf. Salmon, I.e. pp. 312, 784. 

B Paris 1715, in twelve vols. folio, containing eleven parts, the sixth part being 
in two volumes. 



70 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

had been in 1685 entrusted with this work by the French 
clergy, on the condition that he submitted it for examination 
to Dr. Vitasse, professor of the Sorbonne, and to Le Merre, an 
advocate of the Parliament. Hardouin submitted only for a 
short time to this condition, as he gained the protection of 
Louis XIV., who accepted the dedication of the work, and 
allowed it to be printed at the royal press. These different 
circumstances gave to the work a kind of official character, 
which contributed not a little to render it suspected by the 
Jansenists and Gallicans, as Hardouin in his dedication to 
Louis xiv. showed himself a very warm partisan of the Bull 
Unigenitus, and the bull itself was inserted in the last 
volume ; besides which, the Index rerum betrayed an oppo 
sition to Gallican principles. He took care to point out 
especially (see, e.g., the art. on the authority of councils) the 
decisions of the Popes or of the councils which were opposed 
to the principles and maxims of the Gallican divines. Louis 
xiv. died at the moment when the printing of the work was 
almost finished; and as the Duke of Orleans, who then became 
regent, favoured the Jansenists, and showed himself hostile to 
the Bull Unigenitus, advantage was taken to complain to the 
Parliament of the publication of Hardouin s work. Parlia 
ment ordered Elias Dupin, Chas. Vitasse, Denys Leger, and 
Philip Anquetil to draw up a report on the subject ; in conse 
quence of which the sale of the work was prohibited, as being 
opposed to the principles of the State, and to those of the 
Gallican Church (1716). They destroyed all the copies they 
could seize, but happily some had already been sent from 
France. Later on, the Parliament was obliged to yield to the 
wishes loudly expressed in various quarters for the publica 
tion of the work. They authorized it, but on the condition 
that the Jesuits should add a volume of corrections, thinking 
they would by these means weaken the Ultramontanism of 
Hardouin. This volume appeared in 1722, 1 printed at the 
royal press, under the title, Addition ordonnee par arrSt dio 
Parlement, pour tre jointe a la Collection des Conciles } etc. In 
the following year the Jesuits obtained the free publication of 
Hardouin s edition, without its being accompanied by the addi- 

1 In folio, written in Latin and French. 



INTRODUCTION. 71 

tional volume ; and they gained their point so well, that that 
volume was even suppressed. Since then the Jansenists have 
republished it at Utrecht in 1730 and 1751, with this title, 
Avis des censeurs nommes par le Parlement de Paris pour exa- 
miner, etc. 1 

Since Hardouin s edition has been widely circulated, it has 
become the favourite text-book of learned men among Catho 
lics as well as Protestants. It is this which Benedict xiv. 
always quotes in his work, De synodo Dicecesana. It is com 
posed of a rich collection of conciliar acts and other important 
documents, and extends as far as 1714, thus going much 
further than Mansi s celebrated edition. It is recommended 
on account of its very beautiful and correct although small 
type, and especially for the five very complete tables which it 
contains. 

These tables contain : (1) a chronological table of all the 
Popes ; (2) a table of all the councils ; (3) an index episco- 
pofum et aliorum qui conciliis interfuerunt ; (4) an index 
geograpliicus episcopatuum ;^ (5) lastly, a very complete index 
rerum et verborum memorabilium. On account of these ad 
vantages, we have also used and quoted Hardouin s collection 
in our History of the Councils, along with the more complete 
work of Mansi. Salmon has analysed the details of Har 
douin s collection, and has given a long list of its faults. 3 
As doctor of the Sorbonne, Salmon was not able to judge 
favourably of Hardouin s collection, to which he would rather 
have preferred that of Labbe and Cossart. He has, how 
ever, acknowledged the improvements and additions which 
distinguish Hardouin s work. 

The collections which follow have been made since the 
publication of Salmon s work. The first is that of Nicholas 
Coleti, which appeared at Venice under the title, Sacrosancta 
concilia ad regiam editionem exacta* The Dominican Mansi, 

1 On the history of Hardouin s edition, see Bower s Hist, of the Popes 
[Rambach s translation, Bd. iv. S. 68] the preliminary dissertation on the col 
lections of the councils. 

8 See Salmon, I.e. p. 817 seq. 

3 Salmon, I.e. pp. 315-331, 786-831. 

4 Twenty-three vols. folio, and 2 vols. Apparatus, 1728-1734. 



72 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

who became Archbishop of Lucca, his native town, com 
piled a supplement to Coleti s work. 1 Several years after 
wards, Mansi undertook a new collection of the acts of the 
councils, which should be more complete than all those which 
had hitherto appeared. He kept his word ; and at the com 
mencement of 1759, thirty-one volumes in folio of this edition 
appeared at Florence, with the title, Sacrorum conciliorum nova 
et amplissima collectio, in qua prceter ea quce Phil. Labbceus et 
Gabr. Cossartus et novissime Nicolaus Coleti in lucem edidere, 
ea omnia insuper suis in locis optime disposita exhibentur, quce 
Jo. Dom. Mansi Lucensis, congregationis Matris Dei, evulgavit. 
Editio Novissima, db eodem Patre Mansi, potissimum favorem 
etiam et opem prcestante Em. Cardinali Dominico Passioneo, 
S. Sedis apostolicce bibliotkecario, aliisque item eruditissimis 
mris manus auxiliatrices ferentibus, curata, novorum conciliorum, 
novorumque documentorumque additionibus locupletata, ad MSS. 
codices Vaticanos Lucernes aliosque recensita et perfecta. Acce- 
dunt etiam notce et dissertationes quam plurimce ; quce in cceteris 
editionibus desiderantur. This edition was not completed, and 
the thirty-first volume reached only to the fifteenth century. 
It had consequently no indices, and its type, although larger 
and more modern than that of Hardouin s edition, is yet very 
inferior to the latter in accuracy. The order of the subjects 
in the latter volumes is sometimes not sufficiently methodical, 
and is at variance with the chronology. 

By the side of these general collections there are other 
works, which contain only the acts of the councils held in 
particular countries. To these belong 

1. The Concilia Germanice, by Schannat and Harzheim, in 
eleven volumes folio (Coin 1749-1790); Binterim, Prag- 
matische Gfeschichte der deutschen National- Provincial- und wr- 
ziiglicJisten Diocesan-concilien 2 (Mainz 1835-1848), in seven 
volumes octavo, which reached as far as the end of the fifteenth 
century. We may, besides, consult, for the history of the 
German councils : (a) Llinig, Entwurf der in Deutschland wn 
Anfang des Christenthums gehaltenen General- Provincial- und 

1 Six vols. folio, 1748-1752. 

2 Pragmatic History of the National, Provincial, and principal Diocesan 
Synods of Germany. 



INTRODUCTION. 7 3 

Partihdarconcilien, 1 in his Spicilegium des deutsclien Eeichs- 
archivs, 2 P. i. p. 822 ; (6) Pfaff, Delineatio collectionis novce 
conciliorum Germanice, reprinted in Fabricius, Biblioth. Gfrceca, 
ed. Harless, t. xii. p. 310 sqq. ; (c) Joh. And. Schmid, Diss. 
de historid conciliorum Moguntinensium, Helmst. 1713; (d] De 
conciliis Moguntinis, in the work of Georg Christian Johannes, 
Scriptor. Mogunt. vol. iii. p. .281 sqq. Cf. Walch, Hist, der 
Kirclienvers. S. 53, and Salmon, I.e. p. 382 sqq. 

2. Concilia antiqua Gallice, by Father Sirmond (Paris 1629), 
in three volumes folio, and one volume folio, a supple 
ment added by his cousin De la Lande in 1666. Concilia 
novissima Gallice a tempore concilii Tridentini celebrata, ed. 
Ludov. Odespun de la Mechiniere, a priest of Tours (Paris 
1646), one volume folio. 3 Shortly before the Ee volution, the 
Benedictines of the congregation of S. Maur undertook a 
complete collection of the councils of France ; but one folio 
volume alone appeared (Paris 1*789), with the title, Concili 
orum Gallice tarn editorum quam ineditorum Collectio, temporum 
or dine digesta ab anno Christi 177 ad an. 1563, cum epistolis 
pontificum, principum constitutionibus et aliis ecclesiasticce rei 
Gallicance monumentis. Opera et studio monachorum congre- 
gationis S. Mauri, t. i. ab anno 177 ad annum 591. Paris, 
sumptibus Petri Didot. In folio. 

3. Garcias Loaisa was the first to publish a collection of 
the Spanish councils, at Madrid 1593, in one volume folio. 
That of Cardinal Joseph Saenz de Aguirre is much more com 
plete : Collectio maxima Conciliorum omnium Hispanioe et 
novi orbis (Eome 1693), in four volumes folio. 4 More recent 
is the Collectio canonum Ecclesice Hispance ex probatissimis et 
pervetustis Codicibus nunc primum in lucem edita a publica 

1 Sketch of the General, Provincial, and Particular Councils held in Germany 
since the commencement of Christianity. 

2 " Spicilfye" of the Archives of the German Empire. 

3 See, on the French collections, Salmon, I.e. p. 335 sqq., and Bower s History 
of the Popes, 1. c. S. 76 ff. He speaks also of collections which include only 
synods of certain ecclesiastical divisions of France, e.g. that of Tours, Nar- 
bonne, etc. 

4 Cf. Salmon, I.e. p. 365 sq. ; and Bower, I.e., who, instead of 1693, gives a 
false date, 1639. Aguirre was not born until 1630. 



74 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Matritensi libliotJieca (per FRANC. ANT. GONZALEZ, pull Matr. 
liblprcefectum), Matriti, ex typographic^ regia, 1808. In folio. 

4. England and Ireland had two collections. The older is 
that of Henry Spelman : Concilia, decreta, leges, constitutiones 
in re Ecclesiarum orbis Britannici, London, t. i. 1639, t. ii. 
1664 ; the third volume, although announced, never appeared. 1 
That of David Wilkins followed, which is better and more 
complete : Concilia Magna Britannice et Hibernice, ed. DAV. 
WILKINS (London 1*734), in four volumes folio. 2 

5. Sacra concilia Ecdesice Eomano-catlwlicce in regno Un- 
garice, a collection due to Father Charles Peterfy (Vienna 
1742), in two volumes folio. 

6. There does not exist a general collection of the Italian 
councils, but the councils of certain periods or of certain pro 
vinces have been in part collected. There is, e.g., a collection of 
the synods held at Milan, by S. Charles Borromeo (in his com 
plete works) ; a Synodicon Beneventanensis Ecclesm, by Vine. 
Mar. Orsini (Pope Benedict xin.), Beneventum 1695, folio. 

Among the numerous works on the history of the councils, 
the most useful to consult are : 

1. John Cabassutius Notitia Ucclesiastica historiarum con- 
ciliorum et canonum, Lyons 1680, folio. Very often reprinted. 

2. Hermant, Histoire des Concilcs, Eouen 1730, four 
volumes 8vo. 

3. Labbe, Synopsis ffistorica Conciliorum, in vol. i. of his 
Collection of Councils. 

4. Edm. Eicher, Historia conciliorum generalium (Paris 
1680), three volumes 4to. Eeprinted in 8vo at Coin. 

5. Charles Ludovic Eichard, Analysis conciliorum gene- 
ralium et particularism. Translated from French into Latin 
by Dalmasus. Four volumes 8vo, Augsburg 1778. 

6. Christ. "Wilh. Franz Walch, Entwurf einer vollstdndigen 
Historic der Kirclienversammlungen? Leipzig 1759. 

7. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Grceca, edit. Harless, t. xii. p. 42$ 

1 See Salmon, I.e. p. 376 sq. ; and Bower, I.e. S. 94 S., wlio did not know 
the more recent collection of Wilkins. 

2 The first vol. of a new edition of Wilkins, admirably edited by Haddan and 
Stubbs, has lately appeared. ED. 

8 Sketch of a complete History of the Councils, 



INTRODUCTION. 75 

* 

sq_q., in which is contained an alphabetical table of all the coun 
cils, and an estimate of the value of the principal collections. 

8. Alletz, Concilien-Lexikon, translated from Trench into 
German by Father Maurus Disch, a Benedictine and professor 
at Augsburg, 1843. 

9. Dictionnaire universel et complet des Conciles, tant generaux 

que particuliers, etc., redige par M. 1 Abbe P , pretre du 

Diocese de Paris, published by the Abbe Migne (Paris 1846), 
two volumes 4to. 

In the great works on ecclesiastical history for example, 
in the Nouvelle Biblioiheqiw des auteurs Ecclesiastiques, by El. 
Dupin, and the Historia Literaria of Cave, and particularly in 
the excellent Histoire des auteurs sacres, by Eemi Ceillier we 
find matter relating to the history of the councils. Salmon, 
I.e. p. 387 sqq., and Walch in his Historie der Kirclunver- 
sammlungen, pp. 4867, have pointed out a large number of 
works on the history of the councils. There are also very 
valuable dissertations on the same subject in 

1. Christian Lupus Synodorum generalium ac provincialium 
decreta et canones, scholiis, notis ac Jiistorica actorum dissertatione 
illustrata, Louv. 1665, Bruxelles 1673, five volumes 4to. 

2. Lud. Thomassin, Dissertationum in Concilia generalia et 
particular ia, t. i. Paris 1667; reprinted in Eocaberti, Bill, 
pontiftcia, t. xv. 

3. Van Espen, Tractatus Historicus, exhibens scholia in 
omnes canones conciliorum, etc., in his complete works. 

4. Earth. Caranza has written a very complete and useful 
abstract of the acts of the councils in his Summa Conciliorum, 
which has often been re-edited. 

5. George Daniel Euchs, deacon of Stuttgart, has, in his 
Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen (four volumes, Leipsic 
1780-1784), given German translations and abstracts of the 
acts of the councils in the fourth and fifth centuries. 

6. Erancis Salmon, Doctor and Librarian of the Sorbonne, 
has published an Introduction to the Study of the Councils, in 
his Traite de V Etude des Conciles et de leurs collections, Paris 
1724, in 4to, which has often been reprinted. 



BOOK I. 

ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS. 



CHAPTER I. 

COUNCILS OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 

THE first Christian Council, the type and model of all 
the others, was held at Jerusalem by the apostles 
between the years 50 and 52 A.D., in order to solve the ques 
tion of the universal obligation of the ancient law. 1 No other 
councils were probably held in the first century of the Christian 
era ; or if they were, no trace of them remains in history. 
On the other hand, we have information of several councils 
in the second century, The authenticity of this information 
is not, it is true, equally established for all ; and. we can 
acknowledge as having really taken place only those of which 
Eusebius Pamphili, the father of Christian Church history, 
speaks, or other early and trustworthy historians. To these 
belong, first of all : 

SEC. 1. Synods relative to Montanism. 

Eusebius has given us, in his Church History, 2 a fragment 
of a work composed by Apollinaris Bishop of Hierapolis in 
Phrygia, 3 in which the following words occur : " The faithful 
of Asia, at many times and in many places (-TroXXa/a? /cal 
iro\\a^fj Tr}? Acrla^, came together to consult on the subject 
of Montanus and his followers ; and these new doctrines were 
examined, and declared strange and impious." 4 This fragment 

1 Acts xv. 2 Lib. v. c. 16. 3 Sec. ii. 

4 In his notes to Eusebius (Hist. Ecd. I.e.), Yalesius (Du Valois) presumes, 
indeed, that the author of the work from which this fragment is taken is not 

77 



78 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

unfortunately gives no other details, and does not point out 
the towns at which these synods were held ; but the I/ibellus 
Synodicus of Pappus tells us that Apollinaris, the holy Bishop 
of Hierapolis in Asia, and twenty-six of his colleagues in the 
episcopate, held a provincial council at Hierapolis, and there, 
tried and condemned Montanus and Maximilla the false pro 
phets, and at the same time Theodotus the currier (the cele 
brated anti-Trinitarian 1 ). Further on he adds : " A holy and 
particular (^epiKrj) synod, assembled under the very holy 
Bishop Sotas of Anchialus (in Thrace, on the Black Sea), and 
consisting of twelve other bishops, convicted of heresy the 
currier Theodotus, Montanus, and Maximilla, and condemned 
them." 

The Libellus Synodicus? to which we are indebted for these 
details, it is true, can lay claim to no very early origin, as it 
was compiled by a Greek towards the close of the ninth 
century. But this Greek derived his statements from ancient 
authentic sources ; and what he says of the two synods agrees 
so perfectly with the statement of Eusebius, that in this 
passage it is worthy of all confidence. We read in Eusebius 
Church History (book v. cc. 16 and 19), that Apollinaris of 
Hierapolis, and Sotas of Anchialus, contemporaries of Mon 
tanus, zealously opposed his errors, and wrote and preached 
against him. Sotas even wished to exorcise the evil spirit 
from Priscilla, a companion of Montanus ; but these hypocrites, 
adds Eusebius, did not consent to it. 3 

The strong opposition which these two bishops made to 
Montanus makes it probable that they gave occasion to several 

Apollinaris, but Asterius TJrbanus. Baluze disagrees with this statement (Mansi s 
Collect. Condi, i. 693). It is, however, indifferent for our purpose whether the 
fragment in question be Apollinaris or Asterius . 

1 Mansi, i. 723; Hard. v. 1493. 

2 This Libellus Synodicus, called also Synodicon, contains brief notices of 158 
councils of the first nine centuries, and comes down to the eighth (Ecumenical 
Council. It was brought from the Morea in the sixteenth century by Andreas 
Darmasius, and bought by Pappus, a theologian of Strassburg, and edited by 
him for the first time with a Latin translation. It was afterwards transferred 
to the Collection of Councils. Hardouin had it printed in the fifth volume of 
his Collect. Condi, p. 1491 sqq. ; and Mansi separated its various parts, and 
added them to the various synods to which they belonged. 

3 I.e. c. 19. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO MONTANISM. 79 

of the numerous synods in which, according to the summaries 
of Eusebius, the Church rejected Montanism. 

The date of these synods is nowhere exactly pointed out. 
The fragment which is given in Eusebius 1 proves that they 
were held shortly after the commencement of the Montanist 
agitations ; but the date of the rise of Montanism itself is 
uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius gives 172 ; S. Epi- 
phanius 126 in one place, and 156 or 157 in another. 2 He 
says, besides, 3 that Maximilla died about A.D. 86. In this 
there is perhaps an error of a whole century. Blondel, relying 
on these passages, has shown that Mont-anus and his heresy 
arose about 140 or 141 ; and, more recently, Schwegler of 
Tubingen 4 has expressed the same opinion. Pearson, Dodwell, 
and Neander, on the contrary, decide for 156 or 157; Tille- 
mont and Walch 5 for 17 1. As for our own opinion, we have 
adopted Blondel s opinion (the year 140), because the Shepherd 
of Hermas, which was certainly anterior to 151, and was 
written when Pius I. was Pope, seems already to oppose Mon 
tanism. 6 In this case, the synods with which we are occupied 
must have taken place before 150 of the Christian era. The 
Libellus Synodicus gives a contrary decision to this, although 
it attributes to the same synods the condemnation of the 
currier Theodotus, whose apostasy can be fixed only at the 
time of the persecution by M. Aurelius (1 6 0-1 8 0). In reality, 
Theodotus was excommunicated at Eome by Pope Victor 
towards the close of the second century (192-202). In 
allowing that sentence of condemnation had been pronounced 
against him before that time in certain synods of Asia Minor 
and of Thrace (he was living at Constantinople at the time of 
his apostasy), those synods which, according to the Libellus 
Synodicus, have also condemned Montanism could not have 
been held before M. Aurelius : they must therefore have been 
held under that Emperor. The supposition that Theodotus 
and Montanus were contemporary would oblige us to date 

1 Hist. Eccl. v. 16. 2 Nceres. 51. 33 and 48. 1. 

3 Hceres. 48. 2. 4 Der Montanismus, 1841, S. 255. 

5 Walch, Ketz&rJdst. Bd. i. S. 615 f. 

6 Compare the author s treatise, iiber Montanus und die Montanisten, in the 
Freiburger Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii. S. 255, and the Prolegomena to Hefele s third 
edition of the Patres Apostolici, p. Ixxxiii. 



80 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, 

these councils between A.D. 160 and 180 ; but to us it appears 
doubtful whether these two were contemporaries, and the 
conclusion that they were so seems to result from a confusion 
of the facts. In reality, the author of the ancient fragment 
given us by Eusebius 1 speaks also of a Theodotus who was 
one of the first followers of Montanus, and shared his fate, 
i.e. was anathematized in the same synods with Montanus and 
Maximilla. He depicts him as a well-known man. The 
author of the Libellus Synodicus having read this passage, and 
finding that the ancient Synods of Hierapolis and Anchi lus 
had condemned a Theodotus, easily identified the currier Theo 
dotus with the Theodotus whom the author of the fragment 
declared to be celebrated in his time. If this is so, nothing 
will hinder our placing the rise of Montanism and the Synods 
of Hierapolis and Anchialus before A.D. 150. 

SEC. 2. Synods concerning the Feast of Easter. 

The second series of councils in the second century was 
caused by the controversy regarding the time of celebrating 
Easter. It is not quite correct to regard the meeting of S. 
Polycarp of Smyrna, and Anicetus Bishop of Eome, towards 
the middle of the second century, as a synod properly so 
called ; 2 but it is certain that towards the close of the same 
century several synods were occasioned by the Easter con 
troversy. Eusebius, in the passage referred to, only shows in 
a general way that these synods were held in the second half 
of the second century ; but S. Jerome gives a more exact 
date, he says in his Chronicle, under the year 196: " Pope 
Victor wrote to the most eminent bishops of all countries, re 
commending them to call synods in their provinces, and to 
celebrate in them the feast of Easter qn the day chosen by 
the Church of the West." 

Eusebius here agrees with S. Jerome ; for he has 3 pre 
served to us a fragment of a letter written by Polycarp from 

1 Hist. Eccl. v. 16. 

2 Cf. the author s treatise on the Easter controversy in the Freiburger Kirchen- 
lexicon, Bd. vii. S. 874, where the question is considered more carefully. The 
fullest examination will be given, however, under the history of the Nicene 
Council. 

3 Hist. Ecd. v. 24. 



SYNODS CONCERNING THE FEAST OF EASTER. 81 

Ephesus, in which this bishop says that Victor had required 
him to assemble the bishops who were subordinate to him ;, 
that he had done so, but that he and all the bishops present 
ut this synod had pronounced for the practice of the Quarto- 
decimans or of S. John ; that these bishops, the number of 
whom was considerable, had approved of the synodical letter 
which he had drawn up, and that he had no fear (on account 
of the threats of Victor), " because we must obey God rather 
than man." We see from this fragment, that at the moment 
when the synods convoked at the request of Victor in Pales 
tine pronounced in favour of the Western practice in Pales 
tine, Pontus, Gaul, and Osrhoene, a great synod of bishops 
from Asia Minor, held at Ephesus, the see of Polycarp, had 
formally declared against this practice ; and it is precisely 
from the synodical letter of this council that we have the 
fragment given above. 

Bishop Victor then wished to exclude the bishops of Asia 
Minor from the communion of the Church ; but other bishops 
turned him from his purpose. S. Irenseus, in particular, ad 
dressed a letter to him on this occasion, in the name of the 
bishops of Gaul, over whom he presided ; a letter in which, it 
is true, he defended the Western custom of celebrating Easter, 
but in which also he prayed Victor not to excommunicate " a 
great number of churches, who were only guilty of observing an 
ancient custom," etc. This fragment has also been preserved to 
us by Eusebius ; and we may consider it as a part of the synodi 
cal letter of the bishops of Gaul, since, as Eusebius makes him 
remark, Irenseus expressly declared " that he wrote in the name 
of his brethren of Gaul, over whom he presided." It may be 
asked if the synod here spoken of is the same as that men 
tioned by Eusebius in another place, 1 and which we mentioned 
above. If it be the same, it must be admitted that, at the re 
quest of Victor, there was at first a synod of the Quartodeci- 
nians in Asia Minor, and that it was only later on, when the 
result was known, that other councils were also assembled, and 
especially in Gaul. It may be also that S. Irenaeus presided 
over two successive councils in Gaul, and that in the first he 
declared himself for the Western practice regarding Easter, in 

1 v. 23. 

v 



82 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the second against the threatening schism. This is the 
opinion of the latest biographer of S. Irenseus, the Abbe J. 
M. Prat. 1 The Synodicon (Libellus Synodicus) only speaks of 
one synod in Gaul, presided over by Irenaeus, on the subject 
of the Easter controversy ; and he adds that this synod was 
composed of Irenseus and of thirteen other bishops. 

The Libellus Synodicus also gives information about the 
other councils of which Eusebius speaks, concerning the ques 
tion of Easter. 2 Thus : 

a. From the writing of the priests of Eome of which we 
have spoken, and which was signed by Pope Victor, the 
Libellus Synodicus concludes, as also does Valesius in his 
translation of the Eccles. Hist, of Eusebius, 3 that there must 
have been a Eoman synod at which, besides Victor, fourteen 
other bishops were present This is opposed by Dom Con 
stant in his excellent edition of the Epistolce Pontif. p. 94, 
and after him by Mosheim in his book De Rebus Christianorum 
ante Constant. M. p. 2 6 7, who remarks that Eusebius speaks of 
a letter from the Eoman priests and Pope Victor, and not of 
a synod. But it has often happened, especially in the follow 
ing centuries, that the decrees of the synods, and in particular 
of the Eoman synods, have only been signed by the president, 
and have been promulgated by him under the form of an 
edict emanating from him alone. This is what is expressly 
said by a Eoman synod held by Pope Felix n. in 485. 4 

5. According to the Synodicon, two synods were held in 
Palestine, on the subject of the Easter controversy : the one 
at Jerusalem, presided over by Narcissus, and composed of 
fourteen bishops ; and the other at Csesarea, comprising twelve 
bishops, and presided over by Theophilus. 

c. Fourteen bishops were present at the Asiatic Synod of 
Pontus, under the presidency of Bishop Palmas, whom the 
Synodicon calls Plasmas. 

d. Eighteen bishops were present at that of Osrhoene ; the 
Libellus Synodicus does not mention who presided. 

1 Translated into German by Oischinger, Eegensburg 1846. 

2 In Hard. I.e. v. 1494 sq. ; Mansi, I.e. i. 725 sq. 3 v. 23. 

4 Mansi, vii. 1140 ; Hard. iii. 856. Cf. the observations of Ballerini, Opera 
. Leonis M. iii. 933, note 30. 



DOUBTFUL SYNODS OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 83 

e. It speaks also of a synod held in Mesopotamia, on the 
subject of Easter, which also counted eighteen bishops (it is 
probably the same synod as that of Osrhoene). 

/. And, lastly, of a synod at Corinth, presided over by 
Bishop Bacchyllus ; whilst Eusebius 1 says expressly that Bac- 
chyllus of Corinth did not publish any synodical letter on the 
subject of the celebration of Easter, but simply a private letter. 

SEC. 3. Doubtful Synods of the Second Century. 

The anonymous author of the Prcedestinatus speaks of three 
other synods of the second century. According to him, 

a. In A.D. 125 a synod was held of all the bishops of 
Sicily, presided over by Eustathius of Libybseum and Theo 
doras of Palermo. This synod considered the cause of the 
Gnostic Heraclionites, and sent its acts to Pope Alexander, 
that he might decide further in the matter. 2 

&. In 152 the heresy of the Colarbasians, another Gnostic 
sect, was anathematized by Theodotus Bishop of Pergamum 
in Mysia, and by seven other bishops assembled in synod. 3 

c. In 160 an Eastern synod rejected the heresy of the 
Gnostic Cerdo. 4 

The Libellus Synodicus mentions, besides : 

a. A synod held at Eome, under Pope Telesphorus (127 
139), against the currier Theodotus, the anti-Trinitarian. 

1. A second synod at Eome, held under Pope Anicetus, 
upon the Easter question, at the time when Polycarp Bishop 
of Smyrna visited the Pope. 

c. A third Roman synod under Victor, and which con 
demned Theodotus, Ebion, and Artemon. 

d. A fourth Roman synod, also held under Victor, and 
which anathematized Sabellius and Noe tus. 

e. Finally, a synod of the confessors of Gaul, who declared 
against Montanus and Maximilla in a letter addressed to the 
Asiatics. 5 

1 v. 23. 

2 Mansi, I.e. 1. 647. Cf. Mansi s note on the small confidence we must hera 
place in Prcedestinatus. 

3 Mansi, I.e. p. 670. 4 Mansi, I.e. p. 682. 
6 Hard. I.e. v. 1491 sq. ; Mansi, I.e. i. 662, 686, 725 sq. 



84 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

These eight synods mentioned by the author of Prcedcsti- 
natus and by the Lilellus Synodicus are apparently imaginary : 
for, on one side, there is not a single ancient and original 
document which speaks of them ; and on the other, the state 
ments of these two unknown authors are either unlikely or 
contrary to ch ronology. We will instance, for example, the 
pretended Roman synod, presided over by Victor, which 
anathematized Sabellius. In admitting that the usual date, 
according to which Sabellius would have lived a full half- 
century later (about 250), may be inexact, as the PJiiloso- 
plioumena recently discovered have proved, yet it is clear from 
this document that Sabellius had not yet been excluded 
from the Church under Pope Zephyrinus (202-218), the suc 
cessor of Victor, and that he was not excommunicated until 
the time of Pope Calixtus. 1 

It is also impossible that Theodotus the currier should 
have been condemned by a Eoman synod held under Teles- 
phorus, since Theodotus lived towards the close of the second 
century. 2 It is the same with the pretended Sicilian Council 
in 125. According to the information afforded to us by 
the ancients, especially S. Irenceus and Tertullian, Heracleon 
changed the system of Valentine. He could not then have 
flourished till after 125. As to Pope Alexander, to whom 
this synod is said to have rendered an account of its acts in 
125, he died a martyr in 119. 

It is also by mistake that we have been told of a synod 
in which Pope Anicetus and Polycarp both took part. The 
interview of these two bishops has been confounded with a 
synod : it is the same with the pretended Synod of Gaul, 
held against Montanus. 

The author of the Lilellus Synodicus has evidently mis 
understood Eusebius, who says on this subject : 3 " The news 
i of what had taken place in Asia 4 on the subject of Montanus 
(the synod) was known to the Christians of Gaul. The latter 
were at that time cruelly persecuted by Marcus Aurelius ; 
many of them were in prison. They, however, gave their 
opinion from their prison on the matter of Montanus, and 

1 Cf. Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, S. 198 ff. 2 See above, p. 80. 

8 Hist. Eccles. v. 3. 4 See above, p. 78. 



DOUBTFUL SYXODS OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 85 

addressed letters to their brethren of Asia, and to Eleutherus 
Bishop of Borne." It will be seen that the question here is 
not of a synod, but of letters written by confessors (the Iribellus 
Synodicus also mentions confessors). 

Finally, a ninth council, which is said to have conveyed to 
the Bishop of Seleucia a patriarchal right over the whole of 
Assyria, Media, and Persia, is evidently an invention ; and 
the mention of a Patriarchate on this occasion is a patent 
anachronism, as has been proved by Assemani in his Biblio- 
thegiw Orientate? 

1 Cf. the dissertation of the author, der Montanismits, in the Freiburger 
Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii. S. 253. 

2 T. iii. ; and Mansi, Collect. Cone. i. 706. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE SYNODS OF THE THIRD CENTUKY. 

SEC. 4. First Half of the, Third Century. 

series of synods of the third century opens with that 
JL of Carthage, to which Agrippinus bishop of that city 
had called the bishops of Numidia and of proconsular Africa. 
S. Cyprian speaks of this Synod in his seventy-first and 
seventy-third letters, saying that all the bishops present de 
clared baptism administered by heretics to be void ; and he 
supports his own view on this subject by what had passed in 
this ancient Synod of Carthage. 1 This Synod was probably 
the most ancient of Latin Africa ; for Tertullian, 2 who recalls 
the Greek synods as a glory, tells not of one single council 
being held in his country. According to Uhlhorn 3 it was 
about 205, according to Hesselburg about 212, that the work 
of Tertullian, de Jejuniis, was composed ; therefore the Synod 
in question must have been held either after 205 or after 
212. It has not been possible up to this time to verify this 
date more exactly, f But the newly-discovered ^iXoa-o^ovfjieva, 
falsely attributed to Origen, and which were probably written 
by Hippolytus, have given more exact dates ; and Dollinger, 
relying upon this document, has placed the date of this Synod 
of Carthage between 218 and 222.* The Philosophoumena 
relate, indeed, that the custom of re-baptizing that is to say, 
of repeating the baptism of those who had been baptized by 

1 Cypriani Opp. ed. Ben. Par. 1726, pp. 127, 130; Mansi, i. 734. Cf. on this 
Synod, Aug. de bap. contra Donatist. lib. ii. c. 7, where their conclusions are 
found fault with. 

2 De Jejun. c. 12. Cf. Mosh. Commentar. de rebus Christ, ante Const. M. 
p. 264. 

3 Fundamenta Chronologies Tertulliance, 1852, p. 65 sc[. 

4 Dbllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, 1853, S. 189 f. 

ttf 



SYNODS OF FIRST HALF OF THE THIED CENTURY. 87 

heretics was introduced under the Bishop of Kome, Callistus 
(in some churches in communion with him)./ One can 
scarcely doubt but that this passage referred to Bishop Agrip- 
pinus and his Synod at Carthage; for S. Augustine and 
S. Vincent of Lerins 1 say expressly that Agrippinus was the 
first who introduced the custom of re-baptism. The Synod of 
Carthage, then, took place in the time of Pope Callistus I., that 
is to say, between 218 and 222. 2 This date agrees with the 
well-known fact that Tertullian was the first of all Christian 
writers who declared the baptism of heretics invalid ; and it 
may be presumed that his book de Baptismo exerted a certain 
influence upon the conclusions of the Council of Carthage. 3 
It is not contradicted by the forty-sixth (forty-seventh) apos 
tolic canon, which orders bishops, under pain of deposition, 
to re-baptize those who had been baptized by a heretic ; for it 
is known that these so-called apostolic canons were composed 
some centuries later. 

S. Cyprian speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of a synod held 
long before (jampridem) in Africa, and which had decided 
that a clergyman could not be chosen by a dying person as a 
guardian ; 4 but nothing shows that he understood by that, the 
synod presided over by Agrippinus, or a second African council. 

The great Origen gave occasion for two synods at Alex 
andria. About the year 228, being called into Achaia on 
account of the religious troubles reigning there, Origen passed 
through Palestine, and was ordained priest at Caesarea by his 
friends Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem and Theoctistus 
Bishop of Csesarea, although there were two reasons for his 
non-admission to holy orders : first, that he belonged to 
another diocese ; and secondly, that he had castrated himself. 5 
It is not known what decided him or the bishops of Palestine 
to take this uncanonical step. Demetrius of Alexandria, 
diocesan bishop of Origen, was very angry with what had 
been done ; and if we regard it from the ecclesiastical point of 

1 Aug. I.e.; Vincent. Lirin. c. 9, p. 114, ed. Kliipfel. 

2 Pagi, Critica in Annales Baronii, t. i. ad ann. 219, n. ii. 222, n. iv. and 
224, n. ii. p. 206 sq. 

3 Dollinger, I.e. S. 191. , 

4 Cypriani Opp. I.e. p. 114 ; Mansi, I.e. p. 735. 
6 Euseb. Hist. Eccl vi. 23. 



88 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

view, he was right. When Origen returned to Alexandria, 
Demetrius told him of his displeasure, and reproached him 
with, his voluntary mutilation. 1 But the principal grievance, 
without doubt, had reference to several false doctrines held by 
Origen: for he had then already written his book de Principiis 
and his Stromata, which contain those errors ; 2 and it is not 
necessary to attribute to the Bishop of Alexandria personal 
feelings of hatred and jealousy in order to understand that he 
should have ordered an inquiry into Origen s opinions under 
the circumstances. Origen hastened to leave Alexandria of his 
own accord, according to Eusebius ; 3 whilst Epiphanius 4 says, 
erroneously, that Origen fled because, shortly before, he had 
shown much weakness during a persecution. His bitterest 
enemies have never cast a reproach of this nature at him. 
Demetrius, however, assembled a synod of Egyptian bishops 
and priests of Alexandria in 231, who declared Origen 
unworthy to teach, and excluded him from the Church of 
Alexandria. Demetrius again presided over a second synod 
at Alexandria, without this time calling his priests, and Origen 
was declared to be deprived of the sacerdotal dignity. An 
encyclical letter published by Demetrius made these resolu 
tions known in all the provinces. 5 

According to S. Jerome and Eufinus, a Roman assembly, 
probably called under Pope Pontian, shortly after deliberated 
upon this judgment ; and Origen after that sent to Pope 
Fabian (236250) a profession of faith, to explain and retract 
his errors. 6 Several writers have thought that the word 
senatus must not be understood in the sense of a synod, 
and that we are to consider it only as an assembly of the 
Roman clergy. Dollinger, on the contrary, presumes that 
Origen had taken part in the discussions of the priest Hip- 
polytus with Pope Callistus and his successors (Origen had 
learned to know Hippolytus at Rome, and he partly agreed 

1 Euseb. I.e. vi. 8. 2 Euseb. I.e. vi. 24. 3 vi. 26. 4 Hares. 64. 2. 

5 Photii Biblioth. cod. 118; and Hieron. lib. ii. in Rufin. c. 5. Cf. Hefele> 
discussion on Origen in the Freiburger Kirchenlex. of Wetzer and "VVelte, Bd. vii. 
S. 829. [A French translation is edited by Goschler.] 

6 Hieron. Ep. ad Pammochium et Oceanum, n. 84 (al. 65 seu 41), 10, p. 751, 
t. i. ed. Migne. Further : Rufinus, lib. ii. in Hieron. n. 20 ; in Migne, p. 600, 
t. xxi. of his Cursus Patrol.; in the Eened. ed. of S. Jerome, t. iv. pt. ii. p. 430. 



SYNODS OF FIRST HALF OF THE TRIED CENTURY. 89 

with his opinions), and that for this reason Pontian had held 
a synod against Origen. 1 

A little before this period, and "before the accession of Pope 
Fabian, a synod was certainly held at Iconium in Asia Minor, 
which must have been of great authority in the controversy 
which was soon to begin on the subject of the baptism of 
heretics. Like the Synod of Carthage, presided over by Agrip- 
pinus, that of Iconium declared every baptism conferred by a 
heretic to be invalid. The best information upon this Council 
has been furnished us by the letter which Bishop Firmilian 
of Csesarea in Cappadocia, who showed himself so active in 
this controversy, addressed to S. Cyprian. 2 It says : " Some 
having raised doubts upon the validity of baptism conferred by 
heretics, we decided long ago, in the Council held at Iconium 
in Phrygia, with the Bishops of Galatia, Cilicia, and the other 
neighbouring provinces, that the ancient practice against 
heretics should be maintained and held firm (not to regard 
baptism conferred by them)." Towards the end of the letter 
we read ; " Among us, as more than one Church has never 
been recognised, so also have we never recognised as holy any 
but the baptism of that Church. Some having had doubts 
upon the validity of baptism conferred by those who receive 
new prophets (the Montanists), but who, however, appear to 
adore the same Father and the same Son as ourselves, we 
have assembled in great number at Iconium : we have very 
carefully examined the question (diligentissime tractavimus), 
and we have decided that all baptism administered outside 
the Church must be rejected." This letter then speaks of 
the Council of Iconium as of a fact already old ; and it says 
also, that it was occasioned by the question of the validity 
of baptism administered by Montanists. Now, as Firmilian 
wrote this letter about the middle of the third century, it 
follows that the Council of Iconium, of which he often speaks 
as of an ancient assembly held long before (jampridem), took 
place about twenty years before the writing of his letter 
Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third- 
century, also says : " It is not the Africans (Cyprian) who 

1 Dollinger, I.e. S. 260. 2 Gyp. Epp. n. 75. 

3 Cyp. Opp. ed. Benedict, Paris 1726, p. 145 ; Mansi, I.e. p. 914. 



90 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

have introduced the custom of re-baptizing heretics : this 
measure had been taken long before Cyprian (irpo TTO\\OV\ 
by other bishops at the Synod of Iconium and of Synnada." 

In these two passages of his letter to S. Cyprian, Firmilian 
gives us a fresh means of fixing the date of the Synod of 
Iconium, saying formally several times : " We assembled our 
selves at Iconium ; we have examined the question ; we have 
decreed/ etc. It results from this, that he was himself pre 
sent at this Synod. On the other side, the jampridem and 
other similar expressions justify us in placing this Synod 
in the first years of Firmilian s episcopate. Now we know 
from Eusebius 2 that Firmilian flourished so early as in the 
time of the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) as Bishop 
of Csesarea ; so that we can, with Valesiiis and Pagi, place the 
celebration of the Synod of Iconium in the years 2 3 0-2 3 5. 3 
Baronius, by a very evident error, assigns it to the year 258. 

According to all probability, we must refer to the Synod 
of Iconium a short passage of S. Augustine, in the third 
chapter of his third book against Cresconius, in which he 
speaks of a synod composed of fifty Eastern bishops. 

Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, speaks, 4 we 
have seen, not only of the Synod of Iconium, but also of a 
Synod of Synnada, a town also situated in Phrygia. In this 
Synod, he says, the baptism by heretics was also rejected. 
We may conclude from his words that the two assemblies 
took place about the same time. We have no other informa 
tion on this subject. 5 

We know very little about the concilium Lambesitanum, 
which, says S. Cyprian, in his fifty-fifth letter to Pope Cor 
nelius, 6 had been held long before in the Lambesitana Colonia 
(in Numidia) by ninety bishops, and condemned a heretic 

1 Frag, of a letter of Dionysius to the Roman priest Philemon, in Euseb. 
Hist. Eccl vii. 7. 

2 Hist. Eccl vi. 26. 

3 Valesius in his remarks on Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vii. 7 ; Pagi, Critica in 
Annales Baronii, ad ann. 255, n. 16 ; cf. Dollinger, Hippolyt, S. 191 f. 

4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 7. 

5 Dollinger thinks (Hippolyt, S. 191) this Synod was almost contempo 
raneous with that of Carthage under Agrippinus (between 218 and 222). 

6 Gyp. Opp. I.e. p. 84. 



SYNODS OF FIRST HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 91 

named Privatus (probably Bishop of Lambese) as guilty of 
several grave offences." The Eoman priests also mention this 
Privatus in their letter to S. Cyprian ;* but they do not give 
any further information concerning him. 

A better known council was that which was held about 
the year 244, at Bostra in Arabia Petrsea (now Bosrah and 
Bosserat), on account of the errors of Beryllus, bishop of this 
town. It is known that Beryllus belonged to the party of 
the Monarchians, generally called Patripassianists. This 
bishop held other erroneous opinions, which were peculiar to 
himself, and which it is now very difficult to distinguish. 2 

The attempt made by the Arabian bishops to bring back 
Beryllus from his errors having failed, they called in Origen 
to their aid, who then lived at Csesarea in Palestine. 3 Origen 
came and conversed with Beryllus, first in private, then in 
presence of the bishops. The document containing the dis 
cussion was known to Eusebius and S. Jerome ; but it was 
afterwards lost. Beryllus returned to the orthodox doctrine, 
and later expressed, it is said, his gratitude to Origen in a 
private letter. 4 

Another controversy was raised in Arabia about the soul, 
as to whether it passed away (fell asleep) with the body, to 
rise (awake) at the resurrection of the body. At the request 
of one of the great Arabian synods, as Eusebius remarks, 
Origen had to argue against these Hypnopsychites, and he 
was as successful as in the affair of Beryllus. 5 The Libellus 
Synodicus adds 6 that fourteen bishops were present at the 
Synod, but it does not mention, any more than Eusebius, the 
place where it was held. 

About the same period must also have been held two 

1 N. 30, Gyp. Opp. I.e. p. 41, and Ep. 55, p. 84. Cf. Walcli, Ketzerh. (Hist, 
of Heretics), Bd. ii. S. 181 ff. 

2 Cf. on this subject, Ullmann, De Beryllo Bostreno ejusque doctrina Com- 
mentatio, 1835 ; Kober, Beryll von Bostra, eine dogmenh. Untersuchung, in the 
Tubing, theol. Quartalschrift, 1848, Heft 1 ; and Dorner, Lekre von der 
Person Christi, 2 Aufl. Bd. i. S. 545 ff. [Eng. transl. published by Clark of 
Edinburgh]. 

3 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. vi. 33. 

4 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. vi. 33 ; Hieron. in Catalog. Script. Eccl. c. 60. The 
Libellus Synodicus refers also to this Synod, but very barely and inaccurately. 

5 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 37. 6 In Mansi, I.e. i. 790 ; Hard. v. 1495. 



92 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



Asiatic synods, on the subject of the anti-Trinitarian (Patri- 
passian) ISToetus ; S. Epiphanius is the only one to mention, 
them, and he does so without giving any detail, and without 
saying where they took place. 1 The assertion of the author 
of PrcEclestinatus? that about this time a synod was held in 
Achaia against the Valesians, who taught voluntary mutila 
tion, 3 is still more doubtful, and very probably false. The 
very existence of this sect is doubtful. 

We are on more solid historical ground when we approach 
the tolerably numerous synods which were celebrated, chiefly 
in Africa, about the middle of the third century. The letters 
of S. Cyprian especially acquaint us with them. He first 
speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of an assembly of his col 
leagues (the bishops of Africa), and of his fellow-priests (the 
presbyters of Carthage), and so of a Carthaginian 4 Synod, 
which had to decide upon a particular case of ecclesiastical 
discipline. A Christian named Geminius Victor, of Furni 
in Africa, had on the approach of death appointed a priest 
named Geminius Faustinus as guardian to his children. We 
have seen above, that an ancient synod of Africa, perhaps 
that held under Agrippinus, had forbidden that a priest 
should be a guardian, because a clergyman ought not to 
occupy himself with such temporal business. The Synod of 
Carthage, held under S. Cyprian, renewed this prohibition, 
and ordained, in the spirit of that ancient council, that no 
prayers should be said or sacrifices (ollationcs) offered for the 
deceased Victor, as he had no claim to the prayers of priests 
who had endeavoured to take a priest from the holy altar. 
In the letter of which we speak, S. Cyprian gave an account 
of this decision to the Christians of Furni. 5 The Benedictines 
of Saint Maur 6 presume that this letter was written before 
the outbreak of the persecution of Decius, which would place 
this Synod in the year 249. 

1 Epiphan. Hceres. 57, c. 1. Cf. Mansi, I.e. p. 790. 

2 Lib. i. c. 37. 3 Mansi, I.e. p. 790. 

4 Mansi and the other collectors of the acts of councils have overlooked this 
Synod. 

5 Cypriani Ep. 66, p. 114, ed. Bened. 

6 In their Life of S. Cyprian, n. iv. p. xlvi. ed. Bened. 



SYNODS EELATIVE TO NOVATIANISM, ETC. 9 3 

SEC. 5. First Synods at Carthage and Eome on account of 
Novalianism and the " Lapsi" (251). 

The schism of Felicissimus and the Novatian controversy 
soon afterwards occasioned several synods. When, in 248, S. 
Cyprian was elected Bishop of Carthage, there was a small 
party of malcontents there, composed of five priests, of whom 
he speaks himself in his fortieth letter. Soon after the com 
mencement of the persecution of Decius (at the beginning of 
the year 250) the opposition to Cyprian became more violent, 
because in the interest of the discipline of the Church he 
would not always regard the letters of peace which some 
martyrs without sufficient consideration gave to the lapsi. 1 
He was accused of exaggerated severity against the fallen, 
and his own absence (from February 250 until the month of 
April or May 251) served to strengthen the party which was 
formed against him. An accident caused the schism to break 
out. Cyprian had from his retreat sent two bishops and two 
priests to Carthage, to distribute help , to the faithful poor 
(many had been ruined by the persecution). The deacon 
Felicissimus opposed the envoys of Cyprian, perhaps because 
he considered the care of the poor as an exclusive right of 
the deacons, and because he would not tolerate special commis 
sioners from the bishop on such a business. This took place 
at the end of 250, or at the beginning of 251. Felicissimus 
had been ordained deacon by the priest Novatus unknown to 
Cyprian, and without his permission, probably during his re 
treat. Now, besides the fact that such an ordination was con 
trary to all the canons of the Church, Felicissimus was personally 
unworthy of any ecclesiastical office, on account of his deceit- 
fulness and his corrupt manners. 2 Cyprian, being warned by 
his commissioners, excommunicated Felicissimus and some of 
his partisans on account of -their disobedience ; 3 but the 
signal for revolt was given, and Felicissimus soon had with 
him those five priests who had been the old adversaries of 
Cyprian, as well as all those who accused the bishop of .being 

1 Cf. Cypriani Epist. 14. 

2 Cf. Gyp. Epp. 49, 37, 35 ; and Walcli, Ketzerli. Bd. ii. S. 296. 
s Ep. 38. 



94 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

too severe with regard to the lapsi, and of despising the 
letters of the martyrs. These contributed to give to the 
opposition quite another character. Till then it had only 
been composed of some disobedient priests ; henceforth the 
party took for a war-cry the severity of the bishop with re 
gard to the lapsi. Thus not only the lapsi, but also some con 
fessors (confessores) who had been hurt by the little regard that 
Cyprian showed for the libelli pads, swelled the ranks of the 
revolt. 1 It is not known whether No vat as was in the num 
ber of the five priests who were the first movers of the party. 
By some it is asserted, by others denied. After having in 
vain recalled the rebels to obedience/ Cyprian returned to 
Carthage, a year after the festival of Easter in 2 5 1 ; 3 and he 
wrote his book de Lapsis as a preparation for the Synod which 
he assembled soon afterwards, probably during the month of 
May 2 5 1. 4 The Council was composed of a great number of 
bishops, 5 and of some priests and deacons : 6 he excommuni 
cated Felicissimus and the five priests after having heard 
them, 7 and at the same time set forth the principles to be 
followed with regard to the lapsi, after having carefully exa 
mined the passages of Scripture treating of this question. 8 
All the separate decrees upon this subject were collected into 
one book, 9 which may be considered as the first penitential 
book which had appeared in the Church ; but unfortunately 
it is lost. Cyprian makes us acquainted with the principal 
rules in his fifty-second letter : namely, that all hope must not 
be taken away from the lapsed, that, in excluding them from 
the Church, they may not be driven to abandon the faith, and 
to fall back again into a life of heathenism ; that, notwith 
standing, a long penance must be imposed upon them, and 
that they must be punished proportionally to their fault. 10 It 
is evident, continues Cyprian, that one must act differently 
with those who have gone, so to speak, to meet apostasy, 

1 Walch, I.e. S. 305. 2 Walch, I.e. S. 299. 

3 Cypr. Ep. 40, p. 55, ed. Bened. 

4 Cypr. Ep. 40, p. 55 ; Ep. 52, p. 67. Cf. the Vita Cypriani by Prudentius 
Maran, N. xviii. ; same ed. p. Ixxx. 

5 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67. 6 Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 87. 

7 Cypr. Ep. 42, p. 57 ; Ep. 55, pp. 79, 83. 8 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67. 

8 Cyprian speaks of this in his Ep. 52, p. 67. 10 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO NOVATIANISM, ETC. 95 

spontaneously taking part in the impious sacrifices, and those 
who have been, as it were, forced to this odious sacrilege after 
long struggles and cruel sufferings : so also with those who 
have carried with them in their crime their wife, their 
children, their servants, their friends, making them also share 
their fall, and those who have only been the victims, who 
have sacrificed to the gods in order to serve their families 
and their houses ; that there should no less be a difference 
between the sacrificati and the libellatici, that is to say, be 
tween those who had really sacrificed to the gods, and those 
who, without making a formal act of apostasy, had profited by 
the weakness of the Eoman functionaries, had seduced them, 
and had made them give them false attestations ; that the 
libellatici must be reconciled immediately, but that the sacri- 
ficati must submit to a long penance, and only be reconciled 
as the moment of their death approached ; * finally, that as 
for the bishops and priests, they must also be admitted to 
penance, but not again permitted to discharge any episcopal 
or sacerdotal 2 function. 

Jovinus and Maximus, two bishops of the party of Felicis- 
simus, who had been reproved before by nine bishops for 
having sacrificed to the gods, and for having committed 
abominable sacrilege, appeared before the Synod of Carthage. 
The Synod renewed the sentence originally given against 
them ; but in spite of this decree, they dared again to present 
themselves, with several of their partisans, at the Synod of 
Carthage, held the following year. 3 

Cyprian and the bishops assembled around him decided to 
send their synodical decisions of 251 to Eome, to Pope Cor 
nelius, to obtain his consent with regard to the measures 
taken against the lapsi* It was the more necessary to under 
stand, each other on the subject of these measures, as the 
Roman Church had also been troubled by the Nbvatian schism. 5 
Pope Cornelius assembled at Eome in the autumn probably 

1 Cypr. Ep. 52, pp. 69, 70, 71. 

2 Cypr. Ep. 68, pp. 119, 120. 

3 Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 84. Cf. Walcli, I.e. Bd. ii. S. 308. 

4 Cypr. Ep. 52, pp. 67, 68. 

6 Cf. Hefele s art. on this subject in the Kirchenlex. Bd. vii. S. 358 ff. 



96 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

in the month of October 2 5 1 1 a synod composed of sixty 
bishops, without counting the priests and deacons. The 
Synod confirmed the decrees of that of Carthage, and excom 
municated Novatian and his partisans. The two authors who 
have preserved these facts for us are Cyprian 2 and Eusebius. 3 
It must be remarked that several editors of the acts of the 
councils, and several historians, misunderstanding the original 
documents, have turned the two Synods of Carthage and 
Eome (251) into four councils. 4 The Libellus Synodicus also 
speaks of another council which must have been held the 
same year at Antioch, again on the subject of the Novatians ; 
but one can hardly rely on the Libellus Synodicus when it is 
alone in relating a fact. 5 

The Novatian schism could not be extirpated by these 
synods. The partisans of Felicissimus and of Novatian made 
great efforts to recover their position. The Novatians of 
Carthage even succeeded in putting at their head a bishop of 
their party named Maximus, and they sent many complaints to 
Eome on the subject of Cyprian s pretended severity, as, on the 
other side, the persecution which was threatening made fresh 
measures necessary with regard to the lapsi. Cyprian assembled 
a fresh council at Carthage on the Ides of May 252, which 
sixty-six bishops attended. 6 It was probably at this council 
that two points were discussed which were brought forward 
by the African Bishop Fidus. 7 Fidus complained at first that 
Therapius Bishop of Bulla (near Hippo) had received the 
priest Victor too soon into the communion of the Church, and 
without having first imposed upon him the penance he de 
served. The Synod declared that it was evidently contrary 
to the former decisions of the councils, but that they would 

1 Cf. the Vita Cypriani in the Benedict, ed. p. xcii. 2 Ep. 52. 

3 Hist. Ecd. vi. 43, pp. 242, 245, ed. Mog. 

4 Cf. Tillemont, M6moires pour servir a I histoire eccUs. t. iii. art. viii., sur 
S. Corneille, etc., not. v. pp. 197, 348, ed. Brux. 1732. Cf. also Walch, Hist. 
Kirchenvers. S. 102, An. 1. 

5 Mansi, i. 867, 871; Hard. v. 1498; Walch, I.e. S. 103. 

6 Cypr. Ep. 59, p. 97, and Ep. 55, p. 84. 

7 Tillemont, I.e. t. iv. p. 46, art. 30, sur 8. Cyprien; Remi Ceillier, Hist. 
g6n6rale des auteurs sacrds, t. iii. pp. 585, 588, have shown that these were not 
two councils ; whilst Prudentius Maran, in the Vita S. Cypriani, p. xcviii., 
holds for two councils. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO NOVATIANISM, ETC. 97 

content themselves for this time with blaming Bishop Thera- 
pius, without declaring invalid the reconciliation of the piiest 
Victor, which he had effected. In the second place, Fidus 
enunciated the opinion that infants should be baptized, not in 
the first days after their birth, but eight days after ; to observe, 
with regard to baptism, the delay formerly prescribed for 
circumcision. The Synod unanimously condemned this opinion, 
declaring that they could not thus delay to confer grace on 
the new-born. 1 

The next principal business of the Synod was that concerning 
:he lapsi ; and the fifty-fourth letter of S. Cyprian gives us 
m account of what passed on this subject. The Synod, he 
says, on this subject decided that, considering the imminent 
persecution, they might immediately reconcile all those who 
liowed signs of repentance, in order to prepare them for the 
>attle by means of the holy sacraments : Idoneus esse non potest 
d martyrium qui ab Ecclesia non armatur ad prcelium. 2 In 
ddressing its synodical letter to Pope Cornelius (it is the 
fty-fourth of S. Cyprian s letters), the Council says formally : 
^lacuit nobis, sancto Spiritu suggerente? The heretic Privatus, 
f the colonia Lanibesitana, probably bishop of that town, who, 
3 we have seen, had been condemned, again appeared at the 
ouncil ; but he was not admitted. Neither would they admit 
ishops Jovinus and Maximus, partisans of Felicissimus, and 
mdemned as he was ; nor the false Bishop Felix, consecrated 
y Privatus after he became a heretic, who came with him. 
hey then united themselves with the fallen bishop Eepostus 
iturnicensis, 4 who had sacrificed during the persecution, and 
iey gave the priest Fortunatus as bishop to the lax party at 
arthage. 5 He had been one of S. Cyprian s five original 
iversaries. 

1 Cypriani Ep. 59, ad Fidum, p. 97 ss. 

2 Cypriani Ep. 54, p. 78. Eoutli has reprinted and commented upon this 
ter of S. Cyprian s, Reliquiae sacrce, iii. 69 sqq., 108 sqq. This work also con 
ns the acts of all the other synods held by S. Cyprian, accompanied with a 
nmentary. 

Cypr. Ep. 54, p. 79 sqq. Cf. on this Council, Vita 8. Cypriani, in the 
ned. ed. p. xciv. 

The reading is here uncertain. Cf. the notes in the Bened. edition of 
Cyprian, p. 457. 

Cypr. Ep. 55, p. Si. Cf. Vita Cypriani, p. xcvi. 



98 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

A short time after, a new synod assembled at Cartilage on 
the subject of the Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides, 
Both had been deposed for serious faults, especially for having 
denied the faith. Basilides had judged himself to be unworthy 
of the episcopal dignity, and declared himself satisfied if ; 
after undergoing his penance, he might be received into lay 
communion. Martial had also confessed his fault ; but after 
some time they both appealed to Eome, and by means of 
false accounts they succeeded in gaining over Pope Stephen, 
who demanded that Basilides should be replaced in his 
bishopric, although Sabinus had been already elected to suc 
ceed him. Several Spanish bishops seem to have supported 
the pretensions of Basilides and Martial, and placed them 
selves, it appears, on their side ; but the Churches of Leon, oi 
Asturia, and of Emerita, wrote on this subject to the African 
bishops, and sent two deputies to them Bishops Sabinus 
and Felix, probably the elected successors of Basilides and 
Martial. Felix Bishop of Saragossa supported them with 
a private letter. S. Cyprian then assembled a council com 
posed of thirty-seven bishops ; and we possess the synodical 
letter of the assembly, in his sixty-eighth epistle, in which the 
deposition of Martial and Basilides is confirmed, the election 
of their successors is declared to be legitimate and regular, 
the bishops who had spoken in favour of the deposed bishops 
are censured, and the people are instructed to enter into 
ecclesiastical communion with their successors. 1 

SEC. 6. Synods relative to the Baptism of Heretics (255-256). 

To these synods concerning the lapsi, succeeded threi 
African councils on the subject of baptism by heretics. W 
have seen that three former councils that of Carthage, pre 
sided over by Agrippinus ; two of Asia Minor, that of Ice 
nium, presided over by Firmilian, and that of Synnada, hel 
at the same period had declared that baptism conferred b 
heretics was invalid. This principle, and the consequent prac 
tice in Asia Minor, would appear to have occasioned, towarc 
the end of the year 2 5 3, a conflict between Pope Stephen an 
the bishops of Asia Minor, Helenus of Tarsus and Firmilic 

1 Cypr. Ep. 68, p. 117 sq. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 99 

of Caesarea, sustained by all the bishops of Cilicia, of Cappa- 
docia, and the neighbouring provinces ; so that Stephen, accord 
ing to Dionysius the Great, 1 threatened these bishops with 
excommunication because they repeated the baptism conferred 
by heretics. Dionysius the Great mediated with the Pope in 
favour of the bishops of Asia Minor ; and the letter which 
he wrote prevented their being excluded from the Church. 2 
The first sentence of this letter would even allow it to be sup 
posed that peace was completely re-established, and that the 
bishops of Asia Minor had conformed to the demand of the 
Pope. However, later on, Firmilian is again found in opposi 
tion to Eome. 

The Easterns then stirred up the controversy on the baptism 
of heretics before S. Cyprian ; and when Eusebius says, 3 TT/OWTOV 
T&V rore Kwirpiavos, K.T.\., this passage must be thus under 
stood : Cyprian was the most important, and in this sense the 
first, of those who demanded the re-baptism of heretics. 4 

Let us now turn our attention to Africa, and particularly 
to S. Cyprian. Some African bishops being of the opinion 
that those who abandoned heretical sects to enter the Church 
must not be re-baptized, 5 eighteen bishops of Numidia, who 
held a different opinion, and rejected baptism by heretics, 
isked of the Synod of Carthage of 255 6 if it were neces 
sary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics 
)r schismatics, when they entered the Church. 7 At this 
3ynod, presided over by S. Cyprian, there were twenty-one 
Bishops present : 8 the seventieth epistle of Cyprian is nothing 

1 In Euseb. Hist. Ecd. vii. 5. 

2 Eusebius has preserved a fragment of this letter, Hist. Eccles. vii. 5. This 
ragment implies that the letter contained more than Eusebius has preserved of 
t, especially a prayer in favour of the bishops of Asia Minor. Cf. the words 
f another letter of Dionysius : de his omnibus ego ad ilium (Stephanum) epis- 
ilam misi rogans atque obtestans (Euseb. I.e.). Cf. on this point, Vita S. 
fypriani, by Prudentius Maran, in the Bened. edition of S. Cyprian s works, 

. ex. 

3 Hist. Eccles. vii. 3. 4 Vita Cypriani, 1. c. p. cxi. 
5 Cypr. Ep. 71, p. 126. 

5 This date is at least probable. Cf. Vita Cypriani, I.e. p. cxi. 

7 Cypr. Ep. 70, p. 124. 

8 Their names, and those of the eighteen bishops of Numidia, are to be 

at the commencement of the seventieth epistle of Cyprian. 



100 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

but the answer of the Synod to the eighteen Numidian 
bishops. It declares " that their opinion about the baptism 
of heretics is perfectly right ; for no one can be baptized out 
of the Church, seeing there is only one baptism which is in 
the Church," etc. 

Shortly afterwards, Cyprian being again consulted on the 
same question by Quintus, bishop in Mauritania, who sent 
him the priest Lucian, sent in answer the synodical letter of 
the Council which had just separated ; and besides, in a pri 
vate letter joined to this official document, he stated his per 
sonal opinion on the validity of the baptism of heretics, and 
answered some objections. 1 

All the bishops of Africa were probably not satisfied with 
these decisions; 2 and some time after, about 256, Cyprian saw 
himself obliged to assemble a second and larger council at Car 
thage, at which no fewer than seventy-one bishops were present. 
S. Cyprian relates 3 that they treated of a multitude of questions, 
but the chief point was the baptism of heretics. The synodical 
letter of this great assembly, addressed to Pope Stephen, forms 
S. Cyprian s seventieth letter. The Council also sent to the 
Pope the letter of the preceding Synod to the eighteen Nu- 
midian bishops, as well as the letter of S. Cyprian to Quintus, 
and reiterated the assertion " that whoso abandoned a sect 
ought to be re-baptized ;" adding, " that it was not sufficient 
(parum esf) to lay hands on such converts ad accipiendum 
Spiritum sanctum, if they did not also receive the baptism of 
the Church." The same Synod decided that those priests and 
deacons who had abandoned the catholic Church for any of 
the sects, as well as those who had been ordained by the 
sectarian false bishops, on re-entering the Church, could only 
be admitted into lay communion (communio laicalis). At 
the end of their letter, the Synod express the hope that 
these decisions would obtain Stephen s approval : they knew, 
besides, they said, that many do not like to renounce an 

1 Cypr. Ep. 71, p. 126 sq. 

2 " Nescio qua prsesumptione ducuntur quiclam de collegia nostris, ut putent 
eos, qui apud hsereticos tincti sunt, quando ad nos veneriut, baptizare non 
oportere," says S. Cyprian in his seventy-first epistle to Quintus, consequently 
after the Council of 255. 

3 Ep. 72. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 101 

opinion which has once been adopted ; and more than one 
bishop, without breaking with his colleagues, will doubtless 
be tempted to persevere in the custom which he had embraced. 
Besides this, it is not the intention of the Synod to do violence 
to any one, or to prescribe a universal law, seeing that each 
bishop can cause his will to be paramount in the administra 
tion of his Church, and will have to render an account of it to 
God. 1 " These words," Mattes has remarked, 2 " betray either 
the desire which the bishops of Africa had to see Stephen 
produce that agreement by his authority, which did not yet 
exist, and which was not easy to establish ; or else their appre 
hensions, because they knew that there was a practice at Rome 
which did not accord with the opinion of Cyprian." This 
last was, in fact, the case ; for Pope Stephen was so little 
pleased with the decisions of the Council of Carthage, that he 
did not allow the deputies of the African bishops to appear 
before him, refused to communicate with them, forbade all the 
faithful to receive them into their houses, and did not hesitate 
to call S. Cyprian a false Christian, a false apostle, a deceitful 
workman (dolosus operarius). This is at least what Firmilian 
relates. 3 Pope Stephen then pronounced very explicitly, in 
opposition to the Africans, for the validity of the baptism of 
heretics, and against the custom of repeating the baptism of 
those who had already received it from heretics. The letter 
which he wrote on this occasion to Cyprian has unfortunately 
been lost, and therefore his complete argument is unknown to 
us ; but Cyprian and Firmilian have preserved some passages 
of the letter of Stephen in their writings, and it is these short 
fragments, with the comments of Cyprian and Firmilian, 4 
which must serve to make known to us with some certainty 
the view of Stephen on the baptism of heretics. 

It is commonly admitted that S. Cyprian answered this 
violence of Stephen s by assembling the third Council of Car- 
tfiage ; but it is also possible that this assembly took place 

1 Cypriani JEp. 72, p. 128 sq. 

2 Mattes, Abhandlung uber die Ketzertaufe, in the Tubinger Quartalschrift, 
1849, S. 586. 

J In Cyprian, Ep. 75, pp. 150, 151. Cf. Vita Cypriani, I.e. p. cxii. sq. 
4 Seventy-fourth and seventy -fifth letters of S. Cyprian. 



102 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

before the arrival of the letter from Borne. 1 It was composed 
of eighty-seven bishops (two were represented "by one proxy, 
JSTatalis Bishop of Oea) from proconsular Africa, from Numidia, 
and from Mauritania, and of a great number of priests and of 
deacons. A multitude of the laity were also present at the 
Synod. The acts of this Synod, which still exist, inform us 
that it opened on the 1st September, but the year is not 
indicated. 2 It is probable that it was in 256. 3 

First was read the letter of the African Bishop Jubaianus 
to Cyprian on the baptism of heretics, and the answer of 
Cyprian ; 4 then a second letter from Jubaianus, in which he 
declared himself now brought to Cyprian s opinion. The 
Bishop of Carthage then asked each bishop present freely to 
express his opinion on the baptism of heretics : he declared 
that no one would be judged or excommunicated for differ 
ences of opinion; for, added he, no one in the assembly 
wished to consider himself as episcopus episcoporum, or thought 
to oblige his colleagues to yield to him, by inspiring them 
with a tyrannical fear (perhaps this was an allusion to Pope 
Stephen). Thereupon the bishops gave their votes in order, 
Cyprian the last, all declaring that baptism given by heretics 
was invalid, and that, in order to admit them into the Church, 
it was necessary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by 
heretics. 

About the same time Cyprian sent the deacon Eogatian 
with a letter to Firmilian Bishop of Csesarea, to tell him how 
the question about the baptism of heretics had been decided 
in Africa. He communicated to him at the same time, it 
appears, the acts and documents which treated of this busi 
ness. Firmilian hastened to express, in a letter still extant, 
his full assent to Cyrian s principles. This letter of Firmi- 
lian s forms No. 75 of the collection of the letters of S. 
Cyprian : its contents are only, in general, an echo of what 
S. Cyprian had set forth in defence of his own opinion, and 
in opposition to Stephen ; only in Firmilian is seen a much 

1 Cf. Mattes, S. 587. 

2 These acts are printed. Cf. Cypriani Opera, p. 329 sqq. ed. Bened. ; Mansi 
i. 957 sqc[. ; and Hard. i. 159 sc[. 

3 Cf. Vita S. C^riani, I.e. p. cxvi. 4 Ep. 73. 



SYNODS KELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 103 

greater violence and passion against Stephen, so much so, 
that Molkenbuhr, [Roman Catholic] Professor at Paderborn, 
has thought that a letter so disrespectful towards the Pope 
could not be genuine. 1 

We are entirely ignorant of what then passed between 
Cyprian and Stephen, but it is certain that church com 
munion was not interrupted between them. The persecution 
which soon afterwards broke out against the Christians under 
the Emperor Valerian, in 257, probably appeased the contro 
versy. Pope Stephen died as a martyr during this persecu 
tion, in the month of August 257. 2 His successor Xystus 
received from Dionysius the Great, who had already acted as 
mediator in this controversy on the baptism of heretics, three 
letters in which the author earnestly endeavoured to effect a 
reconciliation ; the Eoman priest Philemon also received one 
from Dionysius. 3 These attempts were crowned with success; 
for Pontius, Cyprian s deacon and biographer, calls Pope Xystus 
bonus et pacificus sacerclos, and the name of this Pope was 
written in the diptychs of Africa. 4 The eighty-second letter 
of Cyprian also proves that the union between Kome and 
Carthage was not interrupted, since Cyprian sent a deputation 
to Borne during the persecution, to obtain information respect 
ing the welfare of the Eoman Church, that of Pope Xystus, 
and in general about the progress of the persecution. Soon 
after, on the 14th September 258, Cyprian himself fell, in his 
turn, a victim to the persecution of Valerian. 

It remains for us now, in order fully to understand the 
controversy on the baptism of heretics, to express with 
greater precision the opinions and assertions of Cyprian and 
Stephen. 

1. We must ask, first of all, which of the two had Chris 
tian antiquity on his side. 

a. Cyprian says, in his seventy- third letter : 5 " The custom 
of baptizing heretics who enter the Church is no innovation 

1 Molkenbuhr, Bince dissertatlones de Firmiliano, in Migne, Cursus Patro- 
logice, iii. 1357 sq. On Molkenbuhr, cf. in Freiburger Kirchenlex. Bd. vii. 
S. 218. 

2 Cf. Vita S. Cypriani, I.e. p. cxvi. 

3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 5, 7, and 9. Cf. Vita S. Cypriani, I.e. p. ex. 

4 Cf. Vila S. Cypriani, I.e. p. cxx. 5 P. 130. 



104 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

amongst us : for it is now many years since, under the epis 
copate of Agrippinus of holy memory, a great number o f 
"bishops settled this question in a synod ; and since then, up to 
our days, thousands of heretics have received baptism without 
difficulty." Cyprian, then, wishing to demonstrate the anti 
quity of his custom, could not place it earlier than Agrippinus, 
that is to say, than the commencement of the third century 
(about 220 years after Christ) ; and his own words, especially 
the " since then " (exinde), show that it was Agrippinus who 
introduced this custom into Africa. 

b. In another passage of the same letter, 1 Cyprian adds : 
" Those who forbid the baptism of heretics, having been con 
quered by our reasons (ratione), urge against us the custom 
of antiquity (qui ratione vincuntur, consuetudinem nobis oppo- 
nunt)" If Cyprian had been able to deny that the practice 
of his adversaries was the most ancient, he would have said : 
" They are wrong if they appeal to antiquity (consuetudd) ; it is 
evidently for us." But Cyprian says nothing of the kind : he 
acknowledges that his adversaries have antiquity on their side, 
and he only tries to take its force from this fact, by asking, 
" Is antiquity, then, more precious than truth ? (quasi consuetude 
major sit veritate) " and by adding, " In spiritual things we 
must observe what the Holy Spirit has (afterwards) more 
fully revealed (id in spiritualibus sequendum, quod in melius 
fuerit a Spiritu sancto revdatum)" He acknowledges, there 
fore, in his practice a progress brought about by the successive 
revelations of the Holy Spirit. 

c. In a third passage of this letter, 2 S. Cyprian acknow 
ledges, if possible more plainly, that it was not the ancient 
custom to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics. 
" This objection," he says, " may be made to me : What has 
become of those who in past times entered the Church from 
heresy, without having been baptized ? " He acknowledges, 
then, that in the past, in prceteritum, converts from heresy were 
not re-baptized. Cyprian makes answer to this question : 
" Divine mercy may well come to their aid ; but because one has 
erred once, it is no reason for continuing to err (non tamen, quia 
aliquando erratum est, ideo semper errandum est)." That is tc 

1 I.e. p. 133. * P. 136. 



SYNODS KELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 105 

say, formerly converts were not re-baptized ; but it was a mis 
take, and for the future the Holy Spirit has revealed what is 
best to be done (in melius a Spiritu sancto revelatum). 

d. When Pope Stephen appealed to tradition, Cyprian did 
not answer by denying the fact : he acknowledges it ; but he 
seeks to diminish the value of it, by calling this tradition a 
human tradition, and not legitimate (humana traditio, non 
legitima). 1 

e. Eirmilian also maintained 2 that the tradition to which 
Stephen appealed was purely human, and he added that the 
Eoman Church had also in other points swerved from the 
practice of the primitive Church for example, in the celebra 
tion of Easter. This example, however, was not well chosen, 
since the Easter practice of the Eoman Church dates back to 
the prince of the apostles. 

/. Firmilian says, in another passage 3 of this same letter, 
that it was anciently the custom also in the African Churches 
not to re-baptize the converts : " You Africans," he says, " can 
answer Stephen, that having found the truth, you have re 
nounced the error of your (previous) custom (cos dicere Afri 
potestis, cognita veritate error em vos consuetudinis reliquisse)" 
Nevertheless, Firmilian thought that it was otherwise in Asia 
Minor, and that the custom of re-baptizing converts was traced 
back to a very far-off period ; but when he wishes to give the 
proof of it, he only finds this one : " We do not remember (!) 
when this practice began amongst us." He appeals, in the 
last place, to the Synod of Iconium, 5 which we know was not 
held until about the year 230. 

g. It is worthy of remark, that even in Africa all the 
bishops did not pronounce in favour of the necessity of a fresh 
baptism, 6 which would certainly have been the case if the 
practice of Agrippinus and Cyprian had always prevailed in 
Africa. 

h. A very important testimony in favour of Stephen, and 
one which proves that the ancient custom was not to re-baptize, 
is given by the anonymous author of the book de Rioaptismate ) 

1 Ep. 74, p. 139. 2 In Cyprian, Ep. 75, p. 144. 

5 P. 149. 4 p. 149 . 

5 Pp. 149 and 145. 6 Cf. Cypr. Ep. 71. See above, p. 99. 



106 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

a contemporary and probably a colleague of Cyprian. 1 This 
author says that the practice maintained by Stephen, that of 
simply laying hands on the converts without re-baptizing them, 
is consecrated by antiquity and by ecclesiastical tradition 
(vetustissima consuetudine ac traditione ecdcsiastica), consecrated 
as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance by all the 
saints, and all the faithful (prisca et memoralilis cunctorum 
emeritorum sanctorum et fidelium solemnissima dbservatio), which 
has in its favour the authority of all the churches (auctoritas 
omnium Ecdesiarum), but from which unhappily some have 
departed, from the mania for innovations. 2 

i. S. Vincent of Lerins agrees with the author we have 
just quoted, when he says that Agrippinus of Carthage was 
the first who introduced the custom of re-baptizing, contra 
divinum canonem, contra universalis JEcclesice regulam, contra 
morem atque instituta majorum ; but that Pope Stephen con 
demned the innovation and re-established the tradition, retenta 
est antiqidtas, explosa novitas? 

h S. Augustine also believes that the custom of not re- 
baptizing heretics is an apostolical tradition (credo ex apostolica 
traditione venientem), and that it was Agrippinus who was the 
first to abolish this wholesome custom (sahibcrrima consuetudo), 
without succeeding in replacing it by a better custom, as 
Cyprian thought. 4 

L But the gravest testimony in this question is that of the 
PhilosopJioumena, in which Hippolytus, who wrote about 230, 
affirms that the custom of re-baptizing was only admitted under 
Pope Callistus, consequently between 218 and 222. 5 

m. Before arriving at the conclusion to be deduced from all 
these proofs, it remains for us to examine some considerations 
which appear to point in an opposite direction. 

(a.) In his book de Baptismo? which he wrote when he was 
still a Catholic, and still earlier in a work written in Greek, 7 
Tertullian shows that he did not believe in the validity of 

1 Reprinted at the end of the works of S. Cj^prian in the Benedict, edition, 
p. 353 sq[. As to the author, see Vita Cypriani, I.e. p. cxxvi., and Mattes, 
I.e. p. 591. 

2 Cf. the beginning of this book, I.e. p. 353. 

3 Commonitorium, c. 9. 4 j) e Baptism, c. Donat. ii. 7 (12). 
* Cf. above, p. 86. 6 c. 15. 7 c. 15. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 107 

baptism conferred by heretics. But, on considering it atten 
tively, we find that he was not speaking of all baptism by 
heretics, but only of the baptism of those who had another God 
and another Christ. Besides, we know that Tertullian is al 
ways inclined to rigorism, and he certainly is so on this point ; 
and then, living at Carthage at the commencement of the 
third century, being consequently a contemporary of Agrip- 
pinus, perhaps even being one of his clergy, he naturally 
inclined to resolve this question as Agrippinus resolved it, 
and his book de Baptismo perhaps exerted an influence upon 
the resolutions of the Synod of Carthage. 1 Besides, Tertullian 
does not pretend that it was the primitive custom of the 
Church to re-baptize : his words rather indicate that he thought 
the contrary. He says, Scd circa hcereticos sane quid custodi- 
endum sit, digne quis retr octet ; that is to say, " It would be 
useful if some one would study afresh (or examine more atten 
tively) what ought to be done about heretics, that is to say, 
in relation to their baptism." 

(J3.) Dionysius the Great says, in a passage which Eusebius 3 
has pn^served : " The Africans were not the first to introduce 
this practice (that of re-baptizing converts) : it is more ancient ; 
it was authorized by bishops who lived much earlier, and in 
populous Churches." However, as he only mentions the 
Synods of Iconium and of Synnada before the Africans, his 
expression much earlier can only refer to these assemblies, 
and he adduces no earlier testimony for the practice of 
Cyprian. 

(7.) Clement of Alexandria certainly speaks very disdainfully 
of baptism by heretics, and calls it foreign water ; 4 he does 
not, however, say that they were in the habit of renewing this 
baptism. 5 

(8.) The Apostolical Canons 45 and 46 (or 46 and 47, 
according to another order) speak of the non- validity of bap 
tism by heretics ; 6 but the question is to know what is the 
date of these two canons : perhaps they are contemporary with 

1 Cf. Dollinger, Hippolytus, S. 191. 2 Mattes, I.e. S. 594. 

3 Hist. Eccl vii. 7. 

4 Stromat. lib. i. c. 19 ad finem, vol. i. p. 375, ed. Pott. Venet. 

* Cf. Mattes, I.e. S. 593. 6 Hard. i. 22 ; Mansi, i. 39. 



108 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the Synods of Iconium and of Synnada, perhaps even more 
recent. 1 

We are hardly able to doubt, .then, that in the ancient 
Church, those who returned to the orthodox faith, after having 
been baptized by heretics, were not re-baptized, if they had 
received baptism in the name of the Trinity, or of JESUS. 

2. Let us see now whether Pope Stephen considered as 
valid baptism conferred by all heretics, without any exception 
or condition. "We know that the Synod of Aries in 314, 2 
as well as the Council of Trent, 3 teaches that the baptism of 
heretics is valid only when it is administered in the name 
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Were the 
opinions and assertions of Stephen agreeable to this doctrine 
of the Church ? - 

At first sight Stephen appears to have gone too far, and to 
have admitted all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner 
it was conferred. His chief proposition, as we read it in S. 
Cyprian, is expressed in these terms : Si guis ergo a quacunque 
hceresi venerit ad nos, nil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut 
manus illi vmponatur in pcenitentiam* He seems, then,to de 
clare valid all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner it 
might have been administered, with or without the formula 
of the Trinity. Cyprian argues, in a measure, as if he under 
stood Stephen s proposition in this sense. 5 However, 

a. Prom several passages in the letters of S. Cyprian, we 
see that Pope Stephen did not thus understand it. 

(a.) Thus (Epist. 73, p. 130) Cyprian says: "Those who 
forbid the baptism of heretics lay great stress upon this, that 
even those who had been baptized by Marcion were not re- 
baptized, because they had already been baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ." Thus Cyprian acknowledges that Stephen, and 
those who think with him, 6 attribute no value to the baptism of 
heretics, except it be administered in the name of Jesus Christ. 

1 Drey considers them as more ancient, in his Researches on the Constitutions 
and Canons of the Apostles, p. 260. Cf. the contrary opinion of Dollinger, 
Hippol S. 192 ff. 

2 C. 8. 3 Sess. 7, c. 4, de Bapt. 4 See Cypr. Ep. 74, p. 138. 

5 Epist. 74, pp. 138, 139. 

6 We must admit that the latter were not agreed among themselves, as S. 
Cyprian was with his adherents. Cf. Mattes, I.e. S. 60. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 109 

Cyprian acknowledges in the same letter (p. 133), that 
heretics baptize in nomine Christi. 

(7.) Again, in this letter, 1 he twice repeats that his adver 
saries considered as sufficient baptism administered out of the 
Church, but administered in nomine Christi. 

(8.) Cyprian, in answering this particular question if bap 
tism by the Marcionites is valid acknowledges that they bap 
tize in the name of the Trinity ; but he remarks that, under the 
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they 
understand something different from what the Church under 
stands. This argument leads us to conclude that the adver 
saries of S. Cyprian considered baptism by the Marcionites 
to be valid, because they conferred it in the name of the 
Trinity. 

b. Firmilian also gives testimony on the side of Stephen, 
(a.) He relates, indeed, that about twenty-two years before 

he had baptized a woman in his own country who professed 
to be a prophetess, but who, in fact, was possessed by an evil 
spirit. Now, he asks, would Stephen and his partisans approve 
even of the baptism which she had received, because it had 
been administered with the formula of the Trinity (maxime 
cui nee symbolum Trinitatis defuit) ? 2 

(/3.) In the same letter 3 Firmilian sums up Stephen s opinion 
in these terms : In multum proficit nomen Christi ad fidem et 
baptismi sanctificationem, ut qidcunque et ubicunque in nomine 
Christi baptizatus fuerit, consequatur statim gratiam Christi. 

c. If, then, Cyprian and Firmilian affirm that Pope Stephen 
held baptism to be valid only when conferred in the name of 
Christ, we have no need to have recourse to the testimony 
either of S. Jerome, or of S. Augustine, or of S. Vincent of 
Lerins, who also affirm it. 4 

d. The anonymous author of the book de Eebaptismate, who 
was a contemporary even of S. Cyprian, begins his work with 
these words : " There has been a dispute as to the manner in 
which it is right to act towards those who have been baptized 
by heretics, but still in the name of Jesus Christ : gui in 

1 P. 144. 

2 Ep. 75 of the Collection of S. Cyprian s letters, p. 146. 

3 Ic. p. 148. 4 Cf. Mattes, I.e. S. 603. 



110 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

hceresi quidem, sed in nomine Dei nostri Jesu Christi, sint 
tincti" * 

e. It may again be asked if Stephen expressly required 
that the three divine Persons should be named in the admini 
stration of baptism, and if he required it as a condition sine 
qua non, or if he considered baptism as valid when given only 
in the name of Jesus Christ. S. Cyprian seems to imply that 
the latter was the sentiment of Pope Stephen, 2 but he does 
not positively say so anywhere ; and if he had said it, nothing 
could have been legitimately concluded against Pope Stephen, 
for Cyprian likes to take the words of his adversaries in their 
worst sense. What we have gathered (a S and h a) tends to 
prove that Pope Stephen regarded the formula of the Trinity 
as necessary. Holy Scripture had introduced the custom of 
calling by the short phrase, baptism in the name of Christ, all 
baptism which was conferred in virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, 
and conformably to His precepts, consequently in the name of 
the Holy Trinity, as is seen in the Acts of the Apostles 3 and in 
the Epistle to the Komans. 4 It is not, then, astonishing that 
Pope Stephen should have used an expression which was per 
fectly intelligible at that period. 

/. In this discussion Pope Stephen seems to believe that all 
the heretics of his time used the true formula of baptism, 
consequently the same formula among themselves, and the 
same as the Church. He declares this opinion clearly in 
these words, adduced from his letter by Firmilian : Stephanw in 
sua epistola dixit : hcereticos quoque ipsos in laptismo convenire ; 
and it was on this account, added the Pope, that the heretics 
did not re-baptize those who passed from one sect to another. 5 
To speak thus, was certainly to affirm that all the sects agreed 
in administering baptism with the formula prescribed by our 
Lord. 

S. Cyprian also attributes to Pope Stephen words which 
can be explained very well if we study them with reference to 
those quoted by Firmilian. According to S. Cyprian, 6 Stephen 

1 In the Bened. edition of the works of S. Cyprian, p. 353. 

2 Ep. 73, p. 134 sq. 3 ii. 38, viii. 16, xix. 5. 
4 vi. 3. Cf. Binterira, Memorabilia, i. 132; Klee, Dogmeng. ii. 149 f. 

6 Ep. 75. Among those of Cyprian, p. 144. 6 Ep. 74, p. 138. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. Ill 

had said : " We must not re-baptize those who have been 
baptized by heretics, cum ipsi Jiceretici proprie altcrutrum 
ad se venientes non laptizent ; r that is to say, the different 
sects have not a special baptism of their own (proprie non 
laptizent} : and it is for this reason that heretics do not 
re-baptize those who pass from one sect to another. Now if 
the different sects have not special baptism, if they baptize in 
the same way conveniunt in laptismo as Firmilian makes 
Pope Stephen affirm, they hold necessarily the universal and 
primitive mode of Christian baptism ; consequently they use 
the formula of the Trinity. 

It is difficult to say whether, in admitting this hypothesis, 
Stephen falls into an historical error : for, on one side, S. 
Irenaeus 1 accuses the Gnostics of having falsified the baptismal 
formula, and of having used different erroneous formulas ; and 
consequently he contradicts Stephen ; and, on the other side, 
S. Augustine appears to agree with him, saying : Facilius 
inveniuntur hcerctici qui omnino non ~baptizent quam gui non illis 
verbis (in nomine Patris, etc.) baptizent. 2 

g. We may be inclined to make an objection against Stephen 
on the subject of the Montanists. There is no doubt, in fact, 
that Stephen considered the baptism of these heretics to be 
valid, while the Church afterwards declared it to be of no 
value. 3 But Stephen s opinion is not in this contrary to the 
doctrine of the Church ; neither did the Council of Niceea 
(can. 19) mention the Montanists among those whose baptism 
it rejected. It could not do so any more than Stephen ; for it 
was not until long after the time of Stephen and of the 
Council of Nicsea that a degenerate sect of Montanists fell 
away into formal anti-Trinitarianism. 4 

3. It remains for us to understand what, according to 
Stephen s opinion, was to be done with the converts after 
their reception into the Church. These are Stephen s words 
on this subject : Si qids ergo a guacumgue hceresi venerit ad 

1 Adv. hceres. i. 21. 3. 2 De Baptism, c. Donat. vi. 25 (47). 

3 Seventh canon, attributed to the second General Council, but which does 
not belong to it. 

4 Cf. Hefele s article "Montanus" in Freiburger Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii. 
S. 264, 265. 



112 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

nos, nil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi impo* 
natur in poenitentiam. There is a sense which is often given 
to tliis passage, as follows : " ISTo innovation shall be made ; 
only what is conformable to tradition shall be observed ; hands 
shall be laid on the convert in sign of penitence." But this 
interpretation is contrary to grammatical rules. If Stephen 
had wished to speak in this sense, he would have said : Niliil 
innovetur, sed quod traditum est observetur, etc. Hence Mattes 
translates the words of Stephen thus : " Nothing shall be 
changed (as regards the convert) but what it is according to 
tradition to change ; that is to say, that hands shall be laid 
upon him," L etc. 

Stephen adds, in poenitentiam, that is, that " it is necessary 
that a penance should be imposed on the convert." According 
to the practice of the Church, a heretic who enters into the 
Church ought first to receive the sacrament of penance, then 
that of confirmation. One may ask, if Stephen required these 
two sacraments, or if he only required that of penance ? Each 
of these sacraments comprehended the imposition of hands, as 
some words of Pope Vigilius 2 clearly indicate; and consequently 
by the expression, manus illi imponatur, Stephen may under 
stand the administration of the two sacraments. To say that 
there is only in pcenitentiam in the text, is not a very strong 
objection ; for this text is only a fragment, and Cyprian has 
transmitted to us elsewhere other texts of Stephen s thus 
abridged. 3 The manner in which the adversaries of Pope 
Stephen analysed his opinions shows that this Pope really 
required, besides penance, the confirmation of the converts. 
Thus, in his seventy-third letter, Cyprian accuses his adver 
saries of self-contradiction, saying : " If baptism out of the 
Church is valid, it is no longer necessary even to lay hands on the 
converts, ut Spiritum Sanctum consequatur et signetur; " that 

1 Mattes, I.e. S. 628. The first interpretation of this passage is, "besides, the 
one which was admitted by Christian antiquity ; and the words of Pope Stephen 
became a dictum classicum for tradition, as is proved by the use which Vincent 
of Lerins makes of them, Commonitorium, c. 9. 

2 Vigilii Ep. 2, ad Profut. n. 4, in Migne, Cursus Patrol, iii. 1263 ; and 
Mattes, I.e. S. 632. 

3 Thus, above, for this text, Hareiici proprie non baptizent. Cf. Mattes, I.e. 
pp. 629, 611. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 113 

is to say : You contradict yourselves if you attribute a real 
value to baptism by heretics ; you must also equally admit 
the validity of confirmation by heretics. Now you require 
that those who have been confirmed by heretics should be so 
again. S. Cyprian here forgets the great difference which 
exists between the value of baptism and of confirmation j 1 but 
his words prove that Stephen wished that not only penance 
but also confirmation should be bestowed upon converts. 

The same conclusion is to be drawn from certain votes of 
the bishops assembled at the third Council of Carthage (256). 
Thus Secundinus Bishop of Carpi said: " The imposition of 
hands (without the repetition of baptism, as Stephen required) 
cannot bring down the Holy Spirit upon the converts, because 
they have not yet even been baptized." 2 Nemesianus Bishop 
of Thubuni speaks still more clearly : " They (the adversaries) 
believe that by imposition of hands the Holy Spirit is im 
parted, whilst regeneration is possible only when one receives 
the two sacraments (baptism and confirmation 3 ) in the Church." 
These two testimonies prove that Stephen regarded confirma 
tion as well as penance to be necessary for converts. 4 

4. What precedes shows that we must consider as incorrect 
and unhistorical the widespread opinion, that Stephen as well 
as Cyprian carried things to an extreme, and that the proper 
mean was adopted by the Church only as the result of their 
differences. 5 

5. It is the part of Dogmatic Theology, rather than of a 
History of the Councils, to show why Cyprian was wrong, and 
why those who had been baptized by heretics should not be 
re-baptized. Some short explanation on this point will, how 
ever, not be out of place here. 

S. Cyprian repeated essentially Tertullian s argument, yet 
without naming it, and thus summed it up : " As there is 
only one Christ, so there is only one Church : she only is the 
way of salvation ; she only can administer the sacraments ; 

Mattes, I.e. p. 630 sq., shows the reasons which prove that heretics can 
egally administer baptism, but not confirmation. 

Cypr. Opp. p. 333. * Cypr. Opp. p. 330. 

4 See more details in Mattes, I.e. pp. 615-636. 

5 Cf. Mattes, I.e. p. 603. 

H 



114 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

out of her pale no sacrament can be validly administered." 
He adds : " Baptism forgives sins : now Christ left only to 
the apostles the power of forgiving sins ; then heretics can 
not be possessed of it, and consequently it is impossible for 
them to baptize." 2 Finally, he concludes : " Baptism is a new 
birth ; by it children are born to God in Christ : now the 
Church only is the bride of Christ; she only can, therefore, 
be the means of this new birth." 3 

In his controversy against the Donatists (who revived 
Cyprian s doctrine on this point), S. Augustine demonstrated 
with great completeness, and his accustomed spiritual power, 
two hundred and fifty years afterwards, that this line of argu 
ment was unsound, and that the strongest grounds existed 
for the Church s practice defended by Stephen. The demon 
stration of S. Augustine is as simple as powerful. 4 He 
brought out these three considerations : 

a. Sinners are separated spiritually from the Church, as 
heretics are corporally. The former are as really out of the 
Church as the latter : if heretics could not legally baptize, 
sinners could not either ; and thus the validity of the sacra 
ment would absolutely depend upon the inward state of the 
minister. 

&. We must distinguish between the grace of "baptism and 
the act of baptism : the minister acts, but it is God who gives 
the grace ; and He can give it even by means of an unworthy 
minister. 

c. The heretic is, without any doubt, out of the Church 
but the baptism which he confers is not an alien baptism 
for it is not his, it is Christ s baptism, the baptism which H 
confers, and consequently a true baptism, even when eon 
ferred out of the Church. In leaving the Church, th 
heretics have taken many things away with them, especial! 
faith in Jesus Christ and baptism. These fragments of Churc 
truth are the elements, still pure (and not what they ha^ 

1 Cypr. Ep. 71, 73, 74. * Cypr. 70, 73. 

3 Ep. 74. Mattes has perfectly recapitulated S. Cyprian s argument in t 
second art. of his Abhandlung iiber Ketzertaufe, in Tubinger Quartalschrl 
1850, S. 24 sq. 

4 In his work, de Baptismo contra Donatistas. 



SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 115 

as heretics), which enable them by baptism to give birth to 
children of God. 1 

After S. Augustine, S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Bonaventura, 
the editors of the Roman Catechism, and others, have dis 
cussed the question anew ; and the principal propositions 
upon which the whole subject turns are the following : 

(a.) He who baptizes is a simple instrument, and Christ 
can use any instrument whatever, provided that he does what 
Christ (the Church) wills that he should do. This instrument 
only performs the act of baptism ; the grace of baptism comes 
from God. Thus any man, even a heathen, can administer 
baptism, provided that he will do as the Church does ; and 
this latitude with respect to the administrant of baptism is not 
without reason : it is founded upon this, that baptism is really 
necessary as a means of salvation. 

(13.) Baptism, then, by a heretic will be valid, if it is ad 
ministered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost, and with the intention of doing as the Church 
does (intentio faciendi t qiwd facit ecclesia). 

(7.) Should he who has thus been baptized, after remaining 
a long time in heresy, acknowledge his error and his separa 
tion from the Church, he ought, in order to be admitted into 
the Church, to submit to a penance (manus impositio ad 
pcenitentiam) ; but it is not necessary to re-baptize him. 

(S.) The sacraments are often compared to channels through 
which divine grace comes to us. Then, when any one is bap 
tized in a heretical sect, but is baptized according to the rules, 
the channel of grace is truly applied to him, and there flows 
to him through this channel not only the remission of sins 
(remissio peccatorum), but also sanctification and the renewal 
of the inner man (sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis) ; 
that is to say, he receives the grace of baptism. 

(e.) It is otherwise with confirmation. From the time of 
the apostles, they only, and never the deacons, their fellow- 
workers, had the power of giving confirmation. 2 Now, too, it 
is only the legitimate successors of the apostles, the bishops, 
who can administer this sacrament in the Church. If, there- 

1 S. Augustine s arguments are given in detail in Mattes, I.e. pp. 30-45. 

2 Acts viii. 14-17, xix. 6. 



116 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

fore, any one has been confirmed whilst he was in heresy, he 
can have been so only by a schismatical or heretical bishop or 
priest ; so that his confirmation must be invalid, and it is 
necessary that the imposition of hands should be repeated, ut 
Spiritum sanctum conseguatur et signetur. 1 

Doctor Mattes has brought out, with much depth, in the 
dissertation which we have already frequently quoted, the 
different reasons for believing that baptism and marriage may 
be administered by those who are not Christians. 2 

SEC. 7. Synod of Narbonne (255-260). 

The councils of Christian Africa have chiefly occupied our 
attention so far : we are now to direct attention to those of 
the other countries of the Eoman Empire, and first to those 
of Gaul. It is known that, about the middle of the third 
century, seven missionary bishops were sent into Gaul by 
Pope Fabian, and that one of them was S. Paul, first bishop 
of Narbonne. The acts of his life which have reached us 
speak of a synod held at Narbonne on his account between 
255 and 260. Two deacons, whom the holy bishop had 
often blamed for their incontinence, wished to revenge them 
selves on him in a diabolical manner. They secretly put a 
pair of women s slippers under his bed, and then showed them 
in proof of the bishop s impurity. Paul found himself obliged 
to assemble his colleagues in a synod, that they might judge 
of his innocence or culpability. While the bishops conti 
nued the inquiry for three days, an eagle came and placed 
itself upon the roof of the house where they were assembled. 
Nothing could drive it away, and during those three days a 
raven brought it food. On the third day Paul ordered public 
prayer that God would make known the truth. The deacons 
were then seized by an evil spirit, and so tormented, that the) 
ended by confessing their perfidy and calumny. They coulc 
only be delivered through prayer, and they renewed theii 

1 Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 131, above, p. 112. 

2 Tiibinger Quartalschrift, 1850, S. 51-66. See also in the Freiburger Kirchen 
lexicon, Bd. vi. S. 71 ff., Grusclia s article on the subject of baptism adrnini 
stered by heretics. Gruscha also mentions the works to be consulted on thi 
question. 



SYNODS AT AKSINOE AND ROME. 117 

confession. Instead of judging Paul, the bishops threw them 
selves at his feet, and with all the people entreated his inter 
cession with God. The eagle then took flight towards the 
East. 1 

Such is the account given in the Acts. They are ancient, 
but full of fables, and, as Eemi Ceillier and others have 
already shown, cannot be regarded as a serious historical 
document. 2 

SEC. 8. Synods at Arsinoe and Rome (255260). 

"We have, unlike the case last considered, the most tho 
roughly historical records of the assembly over which Diony- 
sius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, presided at Arsinoe, 3 
and of which he speaks himself in Eusebius. 4 ISTepos, an 
Egyptian bishop, also a very venerable man, and author of 
some Christian canticles, had fallen into the error of the Mil- 
lenarians, and had endeavoured to spread it. 5 Dying some 
time after, he could not be judged ; and his primate, Dionysius 
the Great, had to content himself with refuting the opinions 
which he had propagated. He did so in two books, vrepl 
e7ra f yye\iwv. Besides this, about 255, Dionysius being near 
to Arsinoe, where the errors of Nepos had made great pro 
gress, assembled the priests (of Nepos) and the teachers of the 
place, and prevailed upon them to submit their doctrine to a 
discussion which should take place before all their brethren, 
who would be present at it. In the debate they relied upon 
a work by Nepos, which the Millenarians much venerated. 
Dionysius disputed with them for three days ; and both parties, 
says Dionysius himself, showed much moderation, calmness, 
and love of truth. The result was, that Coration, chief of the 
party of Nepos, promised to renounce his error, and the dis 
cussion terminated to the satisfaction of all. 6 

1 Cf. Franc, de Bosquet, Hist. JEccl Gall, lib. v. p. 106 ; and Mansi, i. 1002. 

2 Eemi Ceillier, Histoire gtndrale des auteurs sacr6s, iii. 593 ; Walch, Hist, 
der Kirchenvers. S. 110 ; Gallia Christiana, v. 5 ; Histoire du Languedoc, t. i. 
p. 129 sqq. 

3 Arsinoe was an episcopal town in Egypt, in the province of Heptanomos, 
belonging to the patriarchate of Alexandria. 

1 Lib. vii. 24. 5 Upon Nepos, see Freiburger Kirchenkocicon on this word. 
6 Euseb. Hist. Eccl vii. 24. 



118 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Some years later, about 260, the same Dionysius the Great, 
from his manner of combating Sabellius, gave occasion for the 
holding of a Koman synod, of which we shall speak more at 
length in giving the history of the origin of Arianism. 

SEC. 9. Three Synods at Antioch on account of Paul of 

Samosata (264-269). 

Three synods at Antioch in Syria occupied themselves with 
the accusation and deposition of the bishop of that town, the 
well-known anti-Trinitarian, Paul of Samosata. 

Sabellius had wished to strengthen the idea of unity in the 
doctrine of the Trinity, by suppressing the difference between 
the persons, and only admitting, instead of the persons, three 
different modes of action in the one person of God ; conse 
quently denying the personal difference between the Father 
and the Son, and identifying them both. In his doctrinal 
explanation of the mystery of the Trinity, Paul of Samosata 
took an opposite course : lie separated the one from the other, 
the Father and the Son, far too much. He set off, as Sabellius 
did, from a confusion x of the divine persons, and regarded the 
Logos as an impersonal virtue of God in no way distinct from 
the Father. In JESUS he saw only a man penetrated by the 
Logos, who, although miraculously born of a virgin, 2 was yet 
only a man, and not the God-man. His inferior being was etc 
irapQivov ; his superior being, on the contrary, was penetrated 
by the Logos. The Logos had dwelt in the man Jesus, not in 
person, but in quality, as virtue or power (OVK ovaLoobws a\\a 
/cara Trotor^ra). Moreover, by an abiding penetration, He 
sanctified him, and rendered him worthy of a divine name. 3 
Paul of Samosata further taught, that as the Logos is not a 
person, so also the Holy Spirit is only a divine virtue, imper 
sonal, belonging to the Father, and distinct from Him only in 
thought. 

Thus, while Paul on one side approached Sabellianism, on 

1 Nicht-unterscheidung. 2 Cf. Atlianas. Contra Apollln. ii. 3. 

3 See, upon the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, Dorner, Lehre v. d. Person 
Christi, Thl. i. S. 510 ff. ; Schwab, de Pauli Samos. vita atque doctrina, Diss. 
inang. 1839; Feuerlin, Disp. de hceresi Pauli Samos.; "Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. ii. 
S. 64-126. 



SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 119 

the other side he inclined towards the Siibordinatians of Alex 
andria. We will not discuss whether Jewish errors, of which 
Philastrius accuses him, were mixed with this monarchianism, 
as this is merely an accessory question. Theodoret says more 
accurately, that Paul sought, by his anti-Trinitarian doctrines, 
to please his protectress and sovereign Zenobia, who was a 
Jewess, and consequently held anti-Trinitarian opinions. 1 

The new error was so much the more dangerous, as the 
ecclesiastical and political position of its author was of great 
importance. He filled the highest see in the East. We know 
also, that in 264 or 265 2 a great number of bishops assembled 
at Antioch ; particularly Eirmilian of Csesarea in Cappadocia, 
Gregory Thaumaturgus and his brother Athenodorus, the 
Archbishop Helenus of Tarsus in Cilicia, Nicomas of Iconium, 
Hymenseus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Csesarea in Palestine 
(the friend of Origen), Maximus of Bostra, and many other 
bishops, priests, and deacons. Dionysius the Great of Alex 
andria had also been invited to the Synod ; but his age and 
infirmities prevented him from going in person, and he died a 
short time after. He had wished at least to be able in writ 
ing to defend the doctrine of the Church against Paul of 
Samosata, as he had before defended it against Sabellius. 3 
According to Eusebius, he addressed a letter to the church 
at Antioch, in which he would not even salute the bishop. 
Without entirely confirming this statement furnished by 
Eusebius, 4 Theodoret relates that in that letter Dionysius 
exhorted Paul to do what was right, whilst he encouraged 
the assembled bishops to redoubled zeal for orthodoxy. From 
these testimonies we may conclude that Dionysius wrote three 
letters one to Paul, another to the bishops in Synod, a third 
to the church at Antioch ; but it is also true that one single 
letter might easily contain all that Eusebius and Theodoret 
attribute to Dionysius. 5 

1 Theodoret, Hceret. fabul. lib. ii. c. 8. 

2 We know this date from that of the death of Dionysius of Alexandria, who, 
as Eusebius says, died soon after this Synod (vii. 28). 

3 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. vii. 27, 28 ; Theodoret, I.e. 4 I.e. 

The letter by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata, containing ten questions of 
Paul s, and answers from Dionysius, which was first published by Turrianus, a 
Jesuit, and which is found also in Mansi, i. 1039 sq., is not authentic. Opinions 



120 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

In a great number of sessions and discussions they sought; 
to demonstrate the errors of Paul, and entreated him to return 
to orthodoxy ; but the latter, cleverly dissembling his doctrine, 
protested that he had never professed such errors, and that he 
had always followed- the apostolic dogmas. After these de 
clarations, the bishops being satisfied, thanked God for this 
harmony, and separated. 1 

But they found that they were soon obliged to assemble again, 
at Antioch. Firmilian appears to have presided over this fresh 
assembly, as he had over the first: its exact date is not certainly 
known. The Synod explicitly condemned the new doctrine 
introduced by Paul. As, however, Paul promised to renounce 
and retract his errors (as he had absolutely rejected them as 
his in the first Synod), Firmilian and the bishops allowed 
themselves to be deceived a second time. 2 

Paul did not keep his promise, and soon, says Theodoret/ 
the report was spread that he professed his former errors as 
before. However, the bishops would not cut him off imme 
diately from communion with the Church : they tried again 
to bring him back to the right way by a letter which they 
addressed to him ; 4 and it was only when this last attempt 
had failed that they assembled for the third time at Antioch, 

are there attributed to Paul which he did not profess ; as, for example, that of 
two Christs, of two Sons : the name of mother of God is often given to Mary, and 
the whole betrays a period later than ISTestorius. None of the ancients knew 
of this letter. Cf. Remi Ceillier, iii. 277 ; Mohler, Patrol, i. S. 632 ; Walch, 
Keteergesch. ii. S. 71 ff., 83 ff. 

1 Theodoret, I.e.; Euseb. vii. 28. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. 3 I.e. 

4 Theodoret, 1. c. The Jesuit Turrianus discovered a pretended letter from sb 
bishops of the Synod of Antioch, addressed to Paul of Samosata, containing f 
complete creed, and ending with the demand that Paul should declare whethe: 
he agreed with it or not. This letter was first quoted in Latin by Baronius, ac 
ann. 266, n. 4, and taken for genuine. It is given in Greek and Latin fr 
Mansi, i. 1033 ; and the creed which it contains is most accurately reproduce* 
by Hahn, Biblioth. d. Symb. 1842, S. 91 ff. The letter in question was regarde< 
as genuine by Mansi in his notes on Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. iv. 145 
Tenet. 1778 ; but its genuineness was called in question by Dupin (Nouvell 
Jjibliotheque, etc., i. 214), by Remi Ceillier (Histolre des auteurs sacr6s, iii. 607) 
and still more by Gottfried Lumper (Historia theol. crit. xiii. 711), for thes 
reasons : 1. The letter was unknown by the ancients ; 2. Paul of Samosata i 
spoken of in a friendly manner in the letter, although, as a matter of fad 
several years before Dionysius the Great of Alexandria would not even nam 
him, and Paul had by this time become much worse ; 3. The letter is signed b 



SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 121 

towards the close of the year 269. 1 Bishop Firmilian died at 
Tarsus in going to this Synod. According to Athanasius, the 
number of assembled bishops reached seventy, and eighty 
according to Hilarius. 2 The deacon Basil, who wrote in the 
fifth century, 3 raises it even to a hundred and eighty. Fir- 
milian being dead, Helenus presided over the assembly, as we 
are expressly assured by the Libellus Synodicus* Besides 
Helenus, Hymenaaus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Ca3sarea in 
Palestine, Maximus of Bostra, Mcomas of Iconium, and others, 
were present. 5 Among the priests who were present at the 
Synod, Malchion was especially remarkable, who, after having 
taught rhetoric with much success at Antioch, had been 
ordained priest there on account of the purity of his manners 
and the ardour of his faith. He was chosen by the bishops 
assembled at Antioch as the opponent in discussion of Paul 
of Samosata, on account of his vast knowledge and his skill 
in logic. The notaries kept an account of all that was said. 
These documents still existed in the time of Eusebius and of 
Jerome ; but we have only some short fragments preserved 
by two writers of the sixth century Leontius of Byzantium 
and Peter the deacon. 6 

only six bishops, whilst ten times that number were present at the Synod ; 4. In 
this letter Hymenseus of Jerusalem is named as president, while we know that 
it was Helenus of Tarsus who presided at the third Synod of Antioch. Never 
theless, more recently, Hahn (I.e.) has adduced the creed contained in this letter 
as genuine ; but Corner (Lehre v. der Person Christi, Bd. i. S. 767, note 38 ; Eng. 
ed. of Clark, A, ii. 10 ff.) shows that the proposition of this creed, "There are 
not two Christs," could have no reference to Paul of Samosata (cf. also "Walch, 
Ketzerhist. Bd. ii. S. 117). Some learned men have ascribed the letter to the 
first Antiochene Synod, which is even less possible. It might rather have been 
published before or during the third Synod by six of its members. Even if it 
is genuine, it is impossible to prove that it is identical with the letter quoted 
above from Theodoret, and intended to bring back Paul to the truth. 

1 We can determine this date, because we know that of the death of Firmilian, 
and of Dionysius of Rome : the latter died 26th December 267. Cf. Lumper, 
Hist. TheoL xiii. 714 sq. ; and Pagi, Critica in Anrial. Baron, ad ann. 271, 
No. 2. 

3 Athan. de Synodis, n. 43, vol. i. P. ii. p. 605, ed. Patav. ; Hilar. Pictav. 
deSynodis, n. 86, p. 1200. 

3 In the acts of the Synod of Ephesns. Hard. I.e. i. 1335. 

4 In Hard. I.e. v. 1498 ; and Mansi, I.e. i. 1099. 

5 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. 

In the Blbl. maxima PP., Lvgdun., ix. 196, 703 ; and in Mansi, I.e. i. 1102. 




122 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

In these disputations Paul of Samosata was convicted of 
error. The Council deposed him, excommunicated him, 1 and 
chose in his place Domnus, son of his predecessor Demetrian 
Bishop of Antioch. Before dissolving itself, the Council sent 
to Dionysius Bishop of Kome, to Maximus of Alexandria, and 
to the bishops of all the provinces, an encyclical letter, which 
we still possess in greater part, in which was an account of 
the errors and manners of Paul of Samosata, as well as of the 
deliberations of the Council respecting him. 2 It is there said, 
" that Paul, who was very poor at first, had acquired great 
riches by illegal proceedings, by extortions and frauds, pro 
fessedly promising his protection in lawsuits, and then de 
ceiving those who had paid him. Besides, he was extremely 
proud and arrogant : he had accepted worldly employments, 
and preferred to be called diicenarius rather than bishop ; 3 he 
always went out surrounded by a train of servants. He was 
reproached with having, out of vanity, read and dictated letters 
while walking ; with having, by his pride, caused much evil 
to be said of Christians ; with having had a raised throne 
made for him in the church ; with acting in a theatrical 
manner striking his thigh, spurning things with his foot, 
persecuting and scorning those who during his sermons did 
not join with the clappers of hands bribed to applaud him ; 
with having spoken disparagingly of the greatest doctors of 
the Church, and with applause of himself; with having sup 
pressed the Psalms in honour of Christ, under the pretext that 
they were of recent origin, to substitute for them at the feast 
of Easter hymns sung by women in his honour ; with having 
caused himself to be praised in the sermons of his partisans, 
priests and chorepiscopi. The letter further declared that 

1 Baronius says, ad ann. 265, n. 10, that Paul of Samosata had been con 
demned before by a synod at Eome under Pope Dionysius. He was deceived by 
the ancient and false Latin translation of Athan. de Synodls, c. 43. 

2 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30; in Mansi, I.e. t. i. p. 1095, and Hard. I.e. 
t. i. p. 195. According to S. Jerome, Catal. Script, ecdes. c. 71, the priest 
Malchion edited this synodical letter. In Euseb. I.e. we also read at the head 
of this letter the name of one Malchion, but side by side with other names of 
the bishops, so that it is doubtful whether this Malchion is the priest of whom 
we are speaking, or a bishop of that name. 

3 The functionaries were thus named who annually claimed a revenue of ducenta 
sestertia. 



SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 123 

he had denied that the Son of God descended from heaven, 
but that he personally had allowed himself to be called an 
angel come from on high; that, besides, he had lived with 
the subintroductce, and had allowed the same to his clergy. 
If he could not be reproached with positive immorality, he 
had at least caused much scandal. Finally, he had fallen into 
the heresy of Artemon ; and the Synod had thought it suffi 
cient to proceed only on this last point. They had therefore 
excommunicated Paul, and elected Domnus in his place. The 
Synod prayed all the bishops to exchange the litteras com- 
municatorias with Domnus, whilst Paul, if he wished, could 
write to Artemon. 1 It is with this ironical observation that 
the great fragment of the synodical letter preserved by Euse- 
bius terminates. It is thought that in Leontius of Byzantium 2 
are to be found some more fragments of this letter treating of 
Paul s doctrine. Much more important is an ancient tradition, 
that the Synod of Antioch must have rejected the expression 
oyitoovo-to?. This is, at least, what semi-Asians have main 
tained; whilst S. Athanasius says " that he had not the synodicai 
letter ^of the Council of Antioch before his eyes, but that the 
semi-Arians had maintained, in their Synod of Ancyra of 358, 
that this letter denied that the Son was ofjuoovcnos TU> Trarpi" 
What the semi-Arians affirmed is also reported by Basil the 
Great and Hilary of Poitiers. Thus it is impossible to main 
tain the hypothesis of many learned men, viz. that the semi- 
Arians had falsified the fact, and that there was nothing true 
about the rejection of the expression ofjioovcnos by the Synod 
of Antioch. The original documents do not, however, show us 
why this Synod of Antioch rejected the word oftoovcrtos ; and 
we are thrown upon conjectures for this point. 

Athanasius says 4 that Paul argued in this way : If Christ, 
from being a man, did not become God that is to say, if He 
were not a man deified then He is opoovaios with the Father; 
but then three substances (ova-leu) must be admitted one first 
substance (the Father), and two more recent (the Son and the 

1 Euseb. vii. 30. 

2 Mansi, i. 1102. 

3 Athan. de Synodis, c. 43 ; Opp. t. i. P. ii. p. 604, ed. Patav. 

4 De Synodis, c. 45. 



124 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Spirit) ; that is to say, that the divine substance is separated 
into three parts. 

In this case Paul must have used the word ojmooixnos in 
that false sense which afterwards many Arians attributed to 
the orthodox : in his mind OJJLOOVO-IOS must have signified the 
possessor of a part of the divine substance, which is not the 
natural sense of the word. Then, as Paul abused this expres 
sion, it may be that for this reason the Synod of Antioch 
should absolutely forbid the use of the word o^oova-ios. Per 
haps Paul also maintained that the opoovo-ios answered much 
better to his doctrine than to that of the orthodox : for he 
could easily name as opoovcno? with the Father, the divine 
virtue which came down upon the man Jesus, since according 
to him this virtue was in no way distinct from the Father ; 
and in this case, again, the Synod would have sufficient ground 
for rejecting this expression. 1 

These explanations would be without any use if the two 
creeds which were formerly attributed to this Council of 
Antioch really proceeded from it. 2 In these creeds the word 
o/ioouo-jo? is not only adopted, but great stress is laid upon it. 
The two creeds also have expressions evidently imitated from 
the Nicene Creed, a fact which shows that they could not 
have proceeded from the Synod of Antioch. If in 269 such 
a profession of faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity had 
been written at Antioch, the Fathers of Nicaea would have 
had much easier work to do, or rather Arianism would not 
have been possible. 

We have already said that the synodical letter of the 
Council of Antioch was addressed to Dionysius Bishop of 
Kome. The Synod did not know that this Pope died in the 
month of December 269 : thus the letter was given to his 

1 Cf. the dissertation by Dr. Frohschammer, "iiber die Verwerfung des 
opoovfftos," in the Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1850, Heft 1. 

2 One is found in a document against ISTestorius among the acts of the Council 
of Ephesus, Hard. i. 1271 ; Mansi, iv. 1010. It contains a comparison "between 
Paul of Samosata and Nestorius. The second creed said to be of Antioch, and 
directed against Paul of Samosata is also found among the acts of the Synod 
of Ephesus, in Mansi, v. 175; Hard. i. 1639; in Hahn, Biblioth. der Symbole, 
S. 129 ff. Cf. on this point, Lumper, Hist. Theol. Crit. xiii. 723, 726, Not. 
n; Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd, ii. S. 119. 



SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 125 

successor, Felix i., who 1 wrote immediately to Bishop Maximus 
and the clergy of Alexandria to define the orthodox faith of 
the Church with greater clearness against the errors of Paul 
of Samosata. 2 

Paul continued to live in the episcopal palace, notwith 
standing his deposition, being probably supported by Zenobia ; 
and he thus obliged the orthodox to appeal to the Emperor 
Aurelian after this prince had conquered Zenobia and taken 
Antioch in 2*72. The Emperor decided that "he should 
occupy the episcopal house at Antioch who was in connection 
with the bishops of Italy and the see of Borne." Paul was 
then obliged to leave his palace with disgrace, as Eusebius 
relates. 3 

We have up to this time spoken of three Synods of Antioch, 
all of them held with reference to Paul of Samosata ; but a 
certain number of historians 4 will admit only two, as we 
think, wrongly. 9 The synodical letter of the last Council of 
Antioch says distinctly that Firmilian went twice on this 
account to Antioch, and that on his third journey to be pre 
sent at a new synod, consequently at a third, he died. 6 As 
the synodical letter is the most trustworthy source which can 
be quoted in this case, we ought to prefer its testimony to 
Theodoret s account, who mentions only two Synods of Antioch. 7 
As for Eusebius, whose authority has been quoted, it is true 
that he first mentions 8 only one synod, then in the following 
chapter another Synod of Antioch; but this other he does 
not call the second he calls it the last. What he says in 
the twenty-seventh chapter shows that he united into one 
only the first and second Synods. " The bishops," he says, 
" assembled often, and at different periods." But even if 
Eusebius had spoken of only two synods, his testimony would 
evidently be of less value than the synodical letter. 

It is with these Synods of Antioch that the councils of 
the third century terminate. The JLibellus Synodicus 9 cer- 

1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30 in fin. 2 llansi, i. 1114. 

s Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. 4 e.g. Lumper, I.e. p. 708, Not. x. 

5 Cf. Eemi Ceillier, I.e. p. 599 ; andWalch, Hist, der Kirchenversamml. S. 113. 

8 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. 7 Hceret. fdbulce, lib. ii. c. 8. 

8 Lib. vii. 28. 9 In Hard. v. 1498 ; Mansi, i. 1128. 



126 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

tainly mentions another synod held in Mesopotamia ; but it 
was only a religious conference between Arehelaus Bishop of 
Carchara (or, more correctly, Caschara) in Mesopotamia, and 
the heretic Manes. 1 As for the pretended Eastern Synod in 
the year 300, in which the patriarchs of Eome, of Constanti 
nople (an evident anachronism), of Antioch, and of Alexandria, 
are said to have granted to the Bishop of Seleucia the dignity 
of patriarch of the whole of Persia, it is a pure invention. 2 

1 The acts of this discussion have been given by Zacagni in his Collectanea 
Monumentorum Veteris Ecdesice; they are found in Mansi, i. 1129-1226. A 
fragment of this discussion is also found in the Sixth Cateckesis of S. Cyril of 
Jersualem ; Mansi, I.e. p. 1226. On the authenticity of these acts, cf. Mosheim, 
Commentar. de rebus Christianorum ante Constant. M. p. 729. 

2 Mansi, i. 1245. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE SYNODS OF THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS OF THE FOURTH 

CENTURY. 

SEC. 10. Pretended Synod of Sinuessa (303). 

IF the document which, tells us of a Synod of Sinuessa 
(situated between Borne and Capua) could have any 
pretension to authenticity, 1 this Synod must have taken place 
about the beginning of the fourth century, in 303. It says : 
The Emperor Diocletian had pressed Marcellinus Bishop of 
Piome to sacrifice to the gods. At first stedfast, the bishop 
had finally allowed himself to be dragged into the temple 
of Vesta and of Isis, and there offered incense to the idols. 
He was followed by three priests and two deacons, who 
fled the moment .he entered the temple, and spread the re 
port that they had seen Marcellinus sacrificing to the gods. 
A Synod assembled, and Marcellinus denied the fact. The 
inquiry was continued in a crypt near Sinuessa, on account 
of the persecution. There were assembled many priests, no 
fewer than three hundred bishops ; a number quite impossible 
for that country, and in a time of persecution. They first 
of all condemned the three priests and the two deacons for 
having abandoned their bishop. As for the latter, although 
sixty-two witnesses had sworn against him, the Synod would 
not pronounce judgment : it simply demanded that he should 
confess his fault, and judge himself ; or, if he was not guilty, 
that he should pronounce his own acquittal. On the morrow 
fresh witness arose against Marcellinus. He denied again. 
The third day the three hundred bishops assembled, once 
more condemned the three priests and the two deacons, called 
up the witnesses again, and charged Marcellinus in God s 

1 Inserted in Mansi, Collect. Concil. i. 1250 sq. ; Hard. Coll. i. 217 sqq. 

127 



128 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

name to speak the truth. He then threw himself on the 
ground, and covering his head with ashes, loudly and re 
peatedly acknowledged his sin, adding that he had allowed 
himself to be bribed by gold. The bishops, in pronouncing 
judgment, formally added : Marcellinus has condemned him 
self, for the occupant of the highest see cannot be judged by 
any one (prima sedes non judicatur a quoquam). The conse 
quence of this Synod was, that Diocletian caused many bishops 
who were present at it to be put to death, even Pope Mar 
cellinus himself, on the 23d of August 303. 

This account is so rilled with improbabilities and evidently 
false dates, that in modern times Eoman Catholics and Pro 
testants have unanimously rejected the authenticity of it. 
Before that, some Eoman Catholics were not unwilling to 
appeal to this document, on account of the proposition, prima 
sedes non judicatur a quoquam. The Eoman breviary itself has 
admitted the account of Marcellinus weakness, and of the 
sacrifice offered by him. 1 But it is beyond all doubt that this 
document is an amplification of the falsehood spread by the 
Donatists about the year 400. They maintain that during 
Diocletian s persecution Marcellinus had delivered up the Holy 
Scriptures, and sacrificed to the idols, a falsehood which 
Augustine and Theodoret had already refuted. 2 

SEC. 11. Synod of Cirta (305). 

If the Donatists have invented the Synod of Sinuessa, 
which never took place, they have, on the other hand, con 
tested the existence of a Council which was certainly held in 
305 at Cirta in Numidia. This Synod took place on the 
occasion of the installation of a new bishop of this town. 

1 Nocturn. ii. 26th April. 

2 Augustine, De unico Baptismo contra Petilianum, c. 16; Theodoret, Hist. 
Eccl. lib. i. c. 2. Details respecting the spuriousness of this document, and 
upon this whole question, are to be found in Pagi, Grit, in Annales Baronii, 
ad ann. 302, n. 18; Papebroch, in the Acta sanct. in Propyl. Mag. vol. viii. ; 
Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. ssec. iii. diss. xx. vol. iv. p. 135, ed. Venet. 1778 ; 
Piemi Ceillier, Hist, des auteurs sacrts, t, iii. p. 681. See, for Protestant 
authors, Bower, Gesch. d. Papste, Bd. i. S. 68 ff. ; Walch, Hist. d. Papste, S. 
68 ff. ; Hist, der Kirchenvers. S. 126. 

8 JSow Constantine. 



SYNOD OF CIRTA. 129 

Secundus Bishop of Tigisium, the oldest of the eleven bishops 
present, presided over the assembly. A short time before, 
an edict of Diocletian had enacted that the sacred writings 
should be given up ; and a multitude of Christians, and even 
bishops, had proved weak, and had obeyed the edict. Most of 
the bishops present at Cirta were accused of this fall ; so that 
the president could say to almost all of them, when question 
ing them according to their rank, Dicitur te tradidisse. They 
acknowledged themselves to be guilty, adding, one that God 
had preserved him from sacrificing to the idols (which would 
have been doubtless a much greater fall) ; another, that in 
stead of the sacred books he had given up books of medicine ; 
a third, that he had been forced by violence, and so forth. 
All implored grace and pardon. The president then demanded 
of Purpurius Bishop of Limata, if it was true that he had 
killed two of his nephews. The latter answered, "Do you 
think you can terrify me like the others ? What did you do 
then yourself, when the curator commanded you to give up 
the Holy Scriptures? This was to reproach him with the 
crime for which he was prosecuting the others ; and the pre 
sident s own nephew, Secundus the younger, addressed his 
ancle in these words : " Do you hear what he says of you ? 
He is ready to leave the Synod, and to create a schism : he 
will have with him all those whom you wish to punish, and 
[ know that they have reasons for condemning you." The 
^resident asked counsel from some of the bishops : they per 
suaded him to decide that " each one should render an account 
;o God of his conduct in this matter (whether he had given 
ip the Holy Scriptures or not)." All were of the same opinion, 
nd shouted, Deo gmtias ! 

This is what is told us in the fragment of the sy nodical 
cts preserved by S. Augustine in the third book of his work 
gainst the Donatist Cresconius. 1 We also learn from this 
cagment, that the Synod was held in a private house belong- 
ig to Urbanus Donatus, during the eighth consulate of Dio- 
Letian and the seventh of Maximian, that is to say, in 303. 
ptatus of Mileve, 2 on the other hand, gives to this Donatus 
ie surname of Carisius, and tells us that they chose a private 
1 Contra Cresc. c. 27. 2 Hist. Donatist. lib, i. 

I 



130 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

house because the churches of the town had not yet been 
restored since the persecution. As for the chronological 
question, S. Augustine says in another place, that the copy of 
the synodical acts, which was carefully examined on occasion 
of the religious conference of Carthage with the Donatists, 
was thus dated : post consulatum Diocletiani novies et Maxi- 
miani octies, tertio nonas Martis, 1 that is to say, March 5, 305. 
That is, in fact, the exact date, as Valesius has proved in 
his notes upon the eighth book of the History of the Church 
by Eusebius, ch r 2. Natalis Alexander has also written a 
special dissertation upon this subject in his History of the 
Church. 2 

When the affair respecting the bishops who had yielded up 
the Holy Scriptures had been decided, they proceeded to the 
election of .the new Bishop of Cirta. The bishops nominated 
the deacon Silvanus, although, as is proved by a fragment of 
the acts preserved by S. Augustine, 3 he had delivered up the 
sacred books in 303, together with his bishop Paul. This 
Silvanus and some others among the bishops assembled at 
Cirta, after having been so indulgent towards themselves, 
afterwards became the chiefs of the rigorous and exaggerated 
party of the Donatists, who saw traditores everywhere, ever 
where there were none. 

SEC. 12. Synod of Alexandria (306). 

Almost at the same period, perhaps a year later, a syno< 
was held at Alexandria, under the presidency of Peter, the: 
archbishop of that place. The Bishop of Lycopolis, Meletiu; 
author of the Meletian schism, was, as S. Athanasius tells u 
deposed by this Synod for different offences ; and among other 

1 Augustine, Breviculus collationis c. Donatistis, collat. diei Illlice, c. 1 
n. 32, viii. 643, ed. Migne. 

2 Hist. Ecdes. ssec. iv. diss. ii. 340, ed. Venet. 1778. 

3 Contra Ores. lib. iii. c. 29. Baronius, ad ann. 303, n. 6, concludes frc 
this fragment that the Synod of Cirta first elected Paul as bishop of that pla( 
Baronius had, in fact, remarked that Paul had yielded up the Holy Script 
in 303, being then Bishop of Cirta. But he is mistaken in supposing that tl 
Synod had taken place in the spring of 303. The passage from the documt 
preserved by Augustine, contra Crescon. iii. 29, ought to have proved to h 
that Paul was already Bishop of Cirta when the persecution began, consequen 
before the assembling of the Synod. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 131 

for having sacrificed to idols. 1 These last words show that 
this Synod took place after the outbreak of Diocletian s per 
secution, consequently after 303. S. Athanasius further adds, 
in his Epistola ad episcopos : " The Meletians were declared 
schismatics more than fifty-five years ago." This letter having 
"been written in 356 or in 361, the latter date would give 
the year 3 6 as that of the Synod ; and this is the date which 
we adopt. For on the other hypothesis (reckoning from the 
year 356) we should be brought to 301, when the persecu 
tion of Diocletian had not begun. 2 

To the beginning of the fourth century belongs the 

SEC. 13. Synod of Elvira (305 or 306). 

This Synod has been, more than any other, an occasion for 
many learned researches and controversies. The principal 
work on the subject is that by the Spaniard Ferdinand de 
Mendoza, in 1 5 9 3 ; it comprises three books, the title of which 
is, de confirmando concilia Illiberitano ad Clementem viu. 3 The 
best text of the acts of this Council is found in the Collectio 
canonum JEcclesice Hispance, by Franc. Ant. Gonzalez, librarian 
(Madrid 1808, in folio). It was compiled from nine ancient 
Spanish manuscripts. Bruns has reproduced it in his BibliotJi. 
eccles* 

Pliny the elder speaks of two towns named Illiberis : the 
one in Gallia Narbonensis, which is now called Collioure, in 
Eoussillon (now French) ; the other in the south of Spain, in 
the province Boetica, now Andalusia. 6 As it is a Spanish 
council, there can be no question but that it was the latter 
town, as Illiberis in Narbonne had been demolished long 
before the time of Constantine the Great. Mendoza relates, 
that in his day the remains of walls bearing the name of 
Elbira might still be seen on a mountain not far from Granada ; 
and the gate of Granada, situated in this direction, is called 
the gate of Elbira. 6 There is also another Eliberis, but it 

1 Athanas. Apolog. cont. Arian. c. 59, vol. i. P. i. p. 140, ed. Patav. 

2 Upon this question of chronology, and upon the Meletian schism, cf. a dis 
sertation by Dr. Hefele in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. vii. 
S. 38. Dom Ceillier adopts the year 301, Hist., etc., iii. 678. 

3 Mansi, Collect. Cone. ii. 57-397. * Vol. i. P. ii. p. 1 so. 

5 Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. iii. c. 1, 4. 6 Mendoza in Mansi, p. 58. 



132 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

dates only from the conquest of the Goths. Illiberris, with 
a double I and a double r, is the true one, according to 
Mendoza. 1 

The synodical acts, whose genuineness could be doubted 
only by hypercriticism, 2 mention nineteen bishops as present 
at the Council. According to a Codex Pitlwanus of its acts, 
their number must have reached forty-three. The nineteen 
are : Felix of Acci (Cadiz), who, probably as being the eldest, 
was nominated president of the Synod ; Hosius 3 of Corduba, 
afterwards so famous in the Arian controversy as Bishop 
of Cordova; Sabinus of Hispalis (Seville), Camerismus of 
Tucci, Sinaginis of Epagra (or Bigerra), Secundinus of Castulo, 
Pardus of Mentesa, Flavian of Eliberis, Cantonius of Urci, 
Liberius of Emerita, Valerius of Caesaraugusta (Saragossa), 
Decentius of Legio (Leon), Melantius of Toledo, Januarius of 
Fibularia (perhaps Salaria in Hispania Tarraconensis), Vincent 
of Ossonoba, Quintianus of Elbora, Successus of Eliocroca, 
Eutychian of Basti (Baza), and Patricius of Malacca. There 
were therefore bishops from the most different parts of Spain ; 
so that we may consider this assembly as a synod representing 
the whole of Spain. The acts also mention twenty-four 
priests, and say that they were seated at the Synod like the 
bishops, whilst the deacons and the laity stood up. The 
decrees proceeded only from the bishops ; for the synodical 
acts always employed this formula : EPISCOPI universi dixerunt. 

1. As for the date of this Synod, the acts tell us that it was 
celebrated, which means opened, at the Ides of May; that 
is, on the 15th May. The inscriptions on the acts also give 
the following particulars : Constantii temporibus editum, eodem 
tempore quo et Niccena synodus habita est. Some of the acts 
add : era 362.* 

Of course it refers to the Spanish era, which began to be 
used in Spain in the fifth century : it counted from the 

1 Mendoza in Mansi, pp. 58, 59. 

2 Doubts have been raised, especially by Berardi (Gradiani Canones genuini 
ab apocrypliis discreti, etc., i. 24, ed. Taurin.. 1752) and by Marcellin Mol- 
kenbuhr (Diss. critica de condl. Truttano Eliberitano, c. Monast. 1791). Cf. 
KatholiJc, 1819, Bd. ii. S. 419. 

3 Or Osius. 

4 BlUiotheca Ecdes. ed. Brans, vol. i. P. ii. pp. 1, 2; Mansi, Collect, cone. ii. 1. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 133 

thirty-eighth year before Christ, so that the year 362 of the 
Spanish era corresponds to 324 of our reckoning. 1 This date 
of 324 answers to that of the Council of Mcsea (325), also 
mentioned in the inscription on the synodical acts ; but the 
tempore Constantii does not agree with it, at least unless we 
should read Constantini. But there are very strong objections 
against this chronological reading. 

a. Most of the ancient manuscripts of these synodical acts 
do not bear any date : one would therefore be led to conclude 
that this had been added at a later time. 2 

1}. Bishop Hosius of Corduba, named among the bishops 
present at the Synod, was not in Spain in 324 : he passed 
the whole of that year either at the Emperor s court (in Mco- 
media) or at Alexandria. Constantine the Great, with whom 
he was, 3 after the defeat of Licinius, consequently in the 
autumn of 323 or in the spring of 324, sent him to that 
place in order to try to settle the Arian strife. Hosius not 
being able to succeed in his mission, returned to the Emperor 
as counsellor on ecclesiastical matters, and immediately after 
wards he took part in the first (Ecumenical Council of Mcsea, 
in 325. 4 

c. A long time previous to 323 and 324 Hosius had left 
Spain, and he generally resided with the Emperor. It is 
known 5 that after the close of the Council of Aries, in 314, 
the Donatists appealed from the judgment of the Council to 
the Emperor Constantine the Great. The sentence given by the 
Emperor in 3 1 6 having been against them, they spread the 
report that it was Hosius of Cordova who had influenced the 
Emperor in his judgment. Augustine, in relating this fact, 
adds that Hosius had, on the contrary, suggested to the Emperor 
more moderate measures than the Donatists deserved. 6 Hosius 
was then at the imperial court, at the latest, in 316: a decree 

1 Cf. the article jEra, by Dr. Hefele, Kirchenlex. of Wetzer u. "Welte, Bd. i. 
S..115. 

2 Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, I.e. 66, 73 ; and Natal. Alex. Hist. Ecdes. ssec. iii. 
diss. 21, art. i. p. 136, vol. iv. ed. Venet. 1778. 

3 Sozoni. Hist. Ecdes. i. 16, and Euseb. Vita Const, ii. 63. 

4 Cf. Tubing. Quartalschrift, 1851, S. 221 sq. 

5 Cf. in the Kirchenlex. Dr. Hefele s article on the Donatists, Bd. iii. S. 257. 

6 Ang. contra Parmenian. lib. i. c. 8, ix. 43, ed. Migne. 



134 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

which Constantino addressed to Cecilian Bishop of Carthage 
in 313, and in which he mentions Hosius, would even lead us 
to conclude that the Spanish bishop was with Constantine 
in 313. 1 

d. We must also notice, that the purport of several canons 
of Elvira cannot agree with this date of 324. 

(a.) Several of these canons appear, indeed, to have been 
compiled during or soon after a violent persecution, in which 
several Christians had apostatized. We say during, or soon 
after ; but it is more likely that it was soon after : for during 
a persecution, bishops from the most distant provinces of 
Spain, from the north and the south, could hardly assemble 
in the same place. Now the last persecution of the Spanish 
Christians by the Emperors was that of Diocletian and of 
Maximianus Herculeus, from 303 to 305. 

(/3.) The decisions of Elvira about the lapsi are much more 
rigorous than those of Kicaea : thus the first canon of Elvira 
forbids that the holy communion should be administered to the 
lapsi, even in articulo mortis. This severity evidently indicates 
a date prior to that of the Synod of Mcsea. Such severity 
during a persecution, or immediately after, could be explained, 
but not so twenty years later. 

2. It was indeed this severity of the canons of Elvira with 
regard to the lapsi which suggested to the oratorian Morinus 
the hypothesis which he propounds in his book de Pcenitentia, 2 
viz. that the Synod of Elvira must have assembled before the 
origin of the Novatian schism, about 250 ; otherwise the 
Fathers of Elvira, by their first canon, must have taken the 
side of the Novatians. But the severity of the Novatians is 
very different from that of the Synod of Elvira. The Nova 
tions pretended that the Church had not the right to admit to 
the communion a Christian who had apostatized : the Eathers 
of Elvira acknowledged this right ; they wished only that in 
certain cases, for reasons of discipline, she should suspend the 
exercise of this right, and delay the admission, non despera- 
tione venice, sed rigore disciplines? We must add, that about 

1 Jn Niceph. Hist. Eccles. vii. 42, quoted "by Mendoza, 1. c. p. 68. 

2 Lib. ix. c. 19. 

* Nat. Alex. I.e. Propos. ii. 137, 145, nota; and Migne, Dictionnaire, i. 813. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 135 

250 Hosius and the other bishops present at the Council of 
Elvira were not yet born, or at any rate they were not among 
the clergy. 

3. The hypothesis of the Magdeburg Centuriators, which 
places the Synod of Elvira in the year 700, is still more 
unfortunate. To give such dates, is to make Hosius and his 
colleagues of Elvira into true Methuselahs of the new cove 
nant. 

4. Following the Fasti of Onuphrius, Hardouin has adopted 
the date 313, giving especially as his reason, that the canons 
of the Council of Aries in 314 have much in common with 
those of Elvira. But this is extremely feeble reasoning ; for 
they might easily profit by the canons of Elvira at Aries, even 
if they were framed ten or twenty years previously. Besides, 
Hosius, as we have seen above, appears to have left his native 
country, Spain, in 313. 1 

5. Baluze has propounded another theory. At the Council 
of Sardica (eleventh canon in Greek, fourteenth canon in 
Latin), Hosius proposed a law (on the subject of the Sunday 
festival), which had been before proposed in a former council 
(superiore concilia). This is an allusion to the twenty-first 
canon of the Council of Elvira. Baluze remarks, that since 
Hosius calls the Council of Elvira superius concilium, this 
Council must have taken place before the Council of Niceea, 
which, with Hosius, when the Council of Sardica was held, 
was only the concilium postremum. The reasoning of Baluze 
can be maintained up to this point ; but afterwards, from 
some other indications, he wishes to conclude that the Synod 
of Elvira took place after those of Ancyra and of Neo- 
csesarea ; consequently between 314 and 325. 2 This latter 
part of his proof is very feeble ; and besides, he has en 
tirely forgotten that Hosius was not in Spain between 314 
and 325. 

6. Mansi thinks that the Synod of Elvira took place in 
309. It is said in the acts, he remarks, that the Council 
was held in the Ides of May. Now in 309 these Ides fell on 
a Sunday ; and at this period they began to hold synods on a 

1 Cf. the note "by Baluze in Mansi, I.e. p. 1, not. 2. 

2 Mansi, I.e. p. 3, note. 



136 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Sunday, as the example of Nicsea shows. 1 This last observa 
tion is not exact. The Council of Nicsea requires, in the 
fifth canon, that two synods should be celebrated annually,- 
one during Lent, the other in the autumn ; but there is no 
where any mention of Sunday. The apostolic canons, No. 36 
(38), give the same meaning : " The first synod shall be held 
in the fourth week after Pentecost ; the second on the 12th 
of the month Hyperberataios." Here also, then, there is no 
mention of Sunday; the 12th of the month Hyperberataios 
might fall upon any day of the week. In the statutes of the 
Synod of Antioch in 341, Sunday is not prescribed more than 
any other day. 

7. The calculation of Mendoza, of Natalis Alexander, of 
Tillemont, of d Aguirre, of Kemi Ceillier, etc., 2 appears to us 
more defensible : they all proceed upon the fact that Valerius 
Bishop of Saragossa, who, we know from the acts, was present 
at the Synod, was persecuted in 304, with his deacon Vincent, 
by the Eoman praetor Dacian. The deacon was put to death, 
and Valerius exiled ; 3 afterwards he also was martyred, if we 
may believe an ancient tradition. They concluded from this, 
that the Council of Elvira could not have taken place before 
304, that is to say, before the arrest of Bishop Valerius ; and 
they only disagreed upon the point whether the Council took 
place at the commencement of the year 3 or 3 1 : d Aguirre 
even mentions the commencement of 303. The difficulty is, 
that they place the Council of Elvira before the outbreak of 

1 Cf. Mansi, note upon Alex. Nat. Hist. Eccles. I.e. p. 139, and his Coll. 
Condi, ii. 22. 

2 Mendoza in Mansi, Coll. Condi, ii. 69, 73 ; Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccles. sec. iii. 
diss. 21, p. 138, ed. Venet. 1778 ; Tillemont, M6moires, etc., vol. vii. in the 
article Osius, pp. 137, 333, ed..Brux. 1732 ; Aguirr. Condi. Hispan. i. 240 sq., 
ii. 1 ; Ceillier, Hist, des auteurs sacre~s, iii. 657. See above, p. 132. 

3 See the Acta S. Vincentii, in Kuinart, ed. Galura, ii. 343. We might be 
surprised that there should be executions of Christians in Spain at this time, 
since this province formed part of the empire of Csesar Constantius. But al 
though Constantius was personally favourable to the Christians, he was obliged 
to conform to the Emperor s commands, as he was only the second personage iu 
the empire. Besides, he did not reside in Spain, but in Gaul ; and it was onl} 
in Gaul, says Eusebius, that the Christians were spared, whilst in Spain anc 
in Britain the subordinate governors ordered the persecutions. Cf. Tillemont, 
Memoires, etc., vol. v., Persecution of Diocletian, art. xxi. and not. xxii. pp. 
25, 26, ed. Brux. 1732. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 137 

the persecution ; whilst, as has been said before, several of the 
canons were evidently written just after a persecution, and 
consequently could not have been promulgated between 300 
and 304. 

8. The opinion, then, which appears to us the most probable 
on this question, is the following : In May 305 Diocletian and 
Maximianus Herculeus had abdicated ; and Constantius, cele 
brated for his benevolence towards the Christians., became 
sovereign ruler of Spain. The persecution, therefore, having 
ceased, the Spanish bishops could assemble at Elvira to deli 
berate, first, respecting the treatment of the lapsi, which 
was the chief subject of the canons which they formed, and 
also to seek for means against the invasion of moral cor 
ruption. 

But it will be said, Was not Valerius of Saragossa dead in 
305 ? I do not think so. To prove it, Eemi Ceillier 1 appeals 
to Prudentius ; but the latter does not say a word of the mar 
tyrdom of Valerius, either in his poem upon all the martyrs 
of Saragossa in general, or in his poem upon Vincent in par 
ticular. If Valerius had really been martyred, he would cer 
tainly not have failed to say so. 2 Then, if Valerius was living 
at the time of the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, he 
was undoubtedly recalled from exile by Constantius ; and he 
could thus take part in the Synod of Elvira, which we there 
fore place in the autumn of 305, or in 306. Baronius, 3 
Binius in Mansi, 4 and others, accept 305, but on other grounds 
than ours, whilst Pagi 5 leaves the question undecided. The 

1 Lc. p. 657, not./. 

2 Prudent. Clemens, Peristeph. iv. passio xvm. Marty rum Ccesar august., says, 
v. 77, p. 220, ed. Obbarii : 

" Inde, Vincenti, tua palma nata est, 
Clerus hie tantum peperit triumphum ; 
Hie sacerdotum donms infulata Yaleriorum ;" 

i.e. " The clergy of Saragossa, the house of the Valerians (i.e. the followers of 
the Bishop Valerius), were so stedfast, that they carried off this victory." But 
this does not prove that Yalerius himself was executed. He participated in the 
triumph "by his exile. What Mendoza brings forward elsewhere in proof of the 
martyrdom of Bishop Valerius, is taken from much later references and tradi 
tions, and therefore cannot be adduced as proof. 

3 Ad ann. 305, 39 eq. 4 Vol. ii, p. 27. 
6 Ad ann. 305, n. 5. 



138 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

eighty-one canons of the Synod of Elvira are the follow 



ing 



CAN. 1. De Ms qiii post liaptismiim idolis immolave- 

runt. 

Placuit inter nos : Qui post fidem baptism! salutaris aclulta 
setate ad templum idoli idololaturus accesserit et fecerit, quod 
est crimen capitale, quia est summi sceleris, placuit nee in 
finem eum communionem accipere. 

" If an adult who has been baptized has entered an idol s 
temple, and has committed a capital crime, he cannot be 
received into communion, even at the end of his life." 

Several interpreters of this canon, among others Dr. Herbst, 
who has explained the canons of Elvira in the Tubinger Quar- 
talschrift, 1 have erroneously thought that we must understand 
here by communio, not eucharistic communion, but only com 
munion with the Church, or sacramental absolution. This is 
a mistake : the word communio does not mean only communion 
with the Church, but sacramental communion as well. If any 
one is excluded from the Church, and if they cannot receive 
sacramental absolution, neither can they receive the holy 
Eucharist. 

CAN. 2. De sacerdotibus gentilium qui post laptismum immo- 
laverunt. 

Elamines, qui post fidem lavacri et regenerationis sacrifica- 
verunt, eo quod geminaverint scelera accedente homicidio, vel 
tripiicaverint facinus cohaerente mrechia, placuit eos nee in 
finem accipere communionem. 

CAN. 3. De eisdem si idolis munus tantum dederunt. 

Item flamines qui non immolaverint, sed munus tantum 
dederint, eo quod se a funestis abstinuerint sacrificiis, placuit 
in finem eis prsestare communionem, acta tamen legitima 
poenitentia. Item ipsi si post poenitentiam fuerint mcechati, 

1 See Mendoza, and tlie Bishop of Orleans, Gabriel de 1 Aubespine. This 
fragment is found in Mansi, ii. 35-55, 110-396. Herbst s explanations have 
been analysed and criticised in the dissertation by Binterira upon the Synod of 
Elvira, in the Kathollk of 1821, ii. 417-444. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 139 

placuit ulterius his non esse dandam communionem ne lusisse 
de dominica communione videantur. 

CAN. 4. De eisdem si catecliumeni aclinic immolant qiiando 
baptizentur. 

Item flamines si fuerint catecliumeni et se a sacrifices 
abstinuerint, post triennii tempora placuit ad baptismum ad- 
nitti debere. 

The office of a flamen in the provinces of the Roman Empire 
3onsisted either in offering sacrifices to the gods, or in pre- 
3aring the public games. It was hereditary in many families ; 
md as it entailed many expenses, he who was legally bound 
;o fill it could not give it up, even if he became a Chris- 
ian, as is proved by the Code of Justinian, and S. Jerome s 
vork De Vita Hilarionis. 1 It followed from this, that the 
nembers of these families of flamines kept their office even 
vhen they were catechumens or had been baptized ; but they 
ried to give up the duties which it imposed, especially the 
acrifices. They consented still to continue to prepare the 
mblie games. In the time of a persecution, the people gene- 
ally wished to oblige them to offer sacrifices also. This Synod 
.ecided on what must be done with these flamines in the 
ifferent cases which might arise. 

a. If they had been baptized, and if they had consented 
o fulfil all their duties, they had by that act alone (a) sacri- 
ced to idols ; (/3) they had taken part in murders, by pre- 
aring for the games (in the games of gladiators), and in acts 
f immorality (in the obscene acts of certain plays). 2 Their 
in was therefore double and triple. Then they must be 
efused the communion as long as they lived. 

I. If they had been baptized, but if, without sacrificing, 
ley had only given the games, they might be received into 
ommunion at the close of their life, provided that they should 

1 Cf. Aubespine s notes in Mansi, I.e. p. 36. 

2 The 30th, 31st, and 72d canons prove, that with the Fathers of Elvira 
cechia signified immorality in general, rather than adultery properly so called. 
Iso adulterare in the title of the 13th canon is not adultery in specie, but 
tbauchery in general, with this difference, that the sin of a virgin consecrated 
> God might be called adultery towards God, to whom she had been conse 
ated, and to whom she had been wanting in fidelity. 



140 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

have first submitted to a suitable penance. But if, after hav 
ing "begun to do penance (that is the sense, and not after the 
accomplishment of the penance), they should again be led into 
any act of immorality (that is to say, if as flamines they should 
allow themselves to organize obscene plays), they should never 
more receive the communion. 

c. If a flamen was only a catechumen, and if, without sacri 
ficing, he had fulfilled his duties (perhaps also given the games), 
he might be baptized after three years of trial. 1 

CAN. 5. Si domina per zelum ancillam occiderit. 

Si qua foemina furore zeli accensa flagris verberaverit ancil 
lam suam, ita ut intra tertium diem animam cum cruciatu 
effundat, eo quod incertum sit voluntate an casu occiderit ; si 
voluntate, post septem annos, si casu, post quinquennii tem 
pera, acta legitima pcenitentia, ad communionem placuit ad- 
mitti ; quod si intra tempora constitute fuerint infirmata, 
accipiat communionem. 

If, in anger, a woman should strike her servant, so that 
the latter should die at the end of three days, the guilty 
woman shall undergo a seven years penance if she struck so 
violently on purpose, and a five years penance if she did not 
do so on purpose to kill : she shall not be received into com 
munion till after this delay. If she should fall ill during 
the time of her penance, she may receive the communion. 

This canon was inserted in the Corpus juris can. 2 

CAN. 6. Si quicungue per maleficium hominem interfecerit. 

Si quis vero maleficio interficiat alterum, eo quod sine idolo- 
latria perficere scelus non potuit, nee in finem impertiendam 
illi esse communionem. 

By maleficio is here to be understood the deceits of magic 
or sorcery, which they considered necessarily connected with 
idolatry. 

The following canon needs no explanation. 

CAN. 7. De poenitentibus mwchice si rursus mwchaverint. 
Si quis forte fidelis post lapsum mcechise, post tempora cou- 
1 Cf. canon 55. C. 43, dist. 1. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 141 

stituta, acta poenitentia, denuo fuerit fornicatus, placuit nee in 
finem habere eum communionem. 

CAN. 8. Defceminis giice relictis viris suis aliis nubunt. 

Item foeminse, quse nulla prsecedente causa reliquerint viros 
suos et alteris se copulaverint, nee in finem aceipiant com 
munionem. 

Some interpreters have thought that the question here was 
that only of a Christian woman leaving her husband, still a 
pagan, without any reason ; for under no pretext could she 
leave a Christian husband to marry another. But the follow 
ing canon proves conclusively that the eighth canon speaks of 
a Christian couple. If it adds without reason} that does not 
mean that there exist any cases in which a woman could leave 
her husband to marry another : the canon decrees only a more 
severe punishment if she should abandon her husband without 
reason ; whilst the following canon prescribes what punish 
ment to inflict in case she should leave her husband not 
entirely without a cause (if, for example, the husband is an 
adulterer). 

The ninth canon, which has also been inserted in the Corpus 
juris canon? is thus worded : 

CAN. 9. De fceminis quce adulteros maritos relingiiunt et aliis 
nubunt. 

Item foemina fidelis, quse adulterum maritum reliquerit 
fidelem et alterum ducit, prohibeatur ne ducat ; si duxerit, non 
prius accipiat communionem, nisi quern reliquit de saeculo 
exierit, nisi forsitan necessitas infirmitatis dare compulerit. 

The following canons are much more difficult to explain. 

CAN. 10. De relicta catechumeni si alterum duxerit. 

Si ea quam catechumenus relinquit duxerit maritum, potest 
ad fontem lavacri admitti : hoc et circa fceminas catechumenas 
erit observandum. Quodsi iuerit fidelis quse ducitur ab eo 

1 Binterim thinks (I.e. p. 425) that sine causa means, "without the previous 
judgment of the bishop." 

2 C. 8, causa xxxii. q. 7. 



142 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

qui uxorem inculpatam relinquit, et quum scierit ilium habere 
uxorem, quam sine causa reliquit, placuit in finem hujusmodi 
dari communionem. 

CAN. 11. De catechumena si gramter cegrotaverit. 

Intra quinquennii autem tempora catechumena si graviter 
fuerit infirmata, dandum ei baptismum placuit non denegari. 

These two canons are difficult to explain, because the section 
between the two does not occupy its proper place. They treat 
of two quite different cases, and each of these cases is sub 
divided into two others. 

1. a. If a catechumen, without any cause, should leave his 
wife, who has not yet been baptized, and if the latter should 
marry another husband, she may be baptized. 

5. In the same way, if a female catechumen should, with 
out reason, leave her husband, still unbaptized, and he 
should marry again, he may be baptized. 

Such is the first case. It supposes that the party who is 
left without cause is not baptized. Here the tenth canor 
should stop. What follows treats of another question, viz 
if the party who has unlawfully left the other can be marriec 
again. The canon does not mention whether the party to b( 
married is baptized, or only a catechumen, and it establishe: 
the following : 

2. a. If a Christian woman marries a man whom she know 
to have illegally divorced his wife, she may communicat 
only on her deathbed. As a Christian, she ought to hav 
known that, according to S. Paul, 1 a Christian (and the cate 
chumen is here considered as such) cannot put away hi 
partner, though an unbeliever, if the latter wishes to centum 
to live with him. 

I. If a female catechumen marries a man who has illegall 
divorced his wife, her baptism shall be put off five yeai 
longer (a further period of trial), and she can be baptized befoi 
that time only in case of a serious illness. 

We think we have thus clearly and accurately explaine 
the sense of these two canons, which have given so muc 
trouble to commentators. 

1 1 Cor vii. 12. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 143 

CAN. 12. De mulieribus quce lenocinium fecerinL 
Mater vel parens vel qugelibet fidelis, si lenocinium exer- 
cuerit, eo quod alienum vendiderit corpus vel potius suum, 
placuit earn nee in finem aecipere cormmmionem. 

We might have remarked on the two preceding canons, that 
their titles are not quite adapted to their contents. It is the 
same with this one. It threatens with perpetual excommuni 
cation those fathers and mothers who should give up their 
children to prostitution, as well as all those who follow this 
shameful trade. The words vel potius suum corpus, etc., how 
ever, evidently apply only to the parents of the young prosti 
tute : in fact, they sell their own flesh and blood in. selling 
their daughter. 

CAN. 13. De mrginibus Deo sacratis si adulteraverint. 

Virgines qua3 se Deo dicaverunt, si pactum perdiderint vir- 
ginitatis atque eidem libidini servierint, non intelligentes quid 
admiserint, placuit nee in finem eis dandam esse communionem. 
Quod si semel persuasse aut infirmi corporis lapsu vitiatse 
omni tempore vitse sure hujusmodi fceminre egerint poenitentiam, 
ut abstineant se a coitu, eo quod lapsse potius videantur, placuit 
eas in finem communionem aecipere debere. 

When virgins consecrated to God (whether nuns properly 
so called, or young girls who have consecrated their youth to 
God, still remaining in their families) have committed a carnal 
sin without acknowledging their offence, and so continuing 
obstinately in their blindness (for it is thus that we must 
understand non intelligentes quid admiserint), they must remain 
permanently excommunicated ; but if they should acknowledge 
their sin, and do perpetual penance, without falling again, they 
may receive the communion at the end of their life. This 
canon was inserted in the Corpus juris can} 

CAN. 14. De mrginibus scecularibus si moecJiaverint. 

Virgines quse virginitatem suam non custodierint, si eosdem 
qui eas violaverint duxerint et tenuerint maritos, eo quod solas 
nuptias violaverint, post annum sine pcenitentia reconciliari 
debebunt ; vel si alios cognoverint viros, eo quod moechatae 

1 C. 25, causa xxvii. q. 1. Cf. c. 19 of the Synod of Ancyra. 



144 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

sunt, placuit per quinquennii tempora, acta legitima poenitentia, 
admitti eas ad communionem oportere. 

If a young girl who lias taken no vows has committed a 
carnal sin, and if she marries him with whom she has been 
led away, she shall be reconciled at the end of one year, with 
out being condemned to penance; that is to say, she may 
receive the communion at the end of one year, because she 
has violated only the marriage law, the rights of which she 
usurped before they were conferred upon her. 

Some manuscripts read, post poenitentiam unius anni recon- 
cilientur ; that is to say, that one year s penance should be 
imposed upon her. The difference between this reading and 
ours is not important, for our reading also imposes on the 
guilty one minor excommunication for a year ; that is to say, 
privation of the communion, which we know was also a degree 
of penance, namely, the fourth. The canon only exempts her 
from the most severe degrees of excommunication, to which 
were attached positive works of penance. The other reading 
says nothing more. If this woman should marry any one 
except him with whom she had fallen, she would commit a 
sort of adultery, and ought to submit to five years of penance. 

The three following canons forbid to marry pagans, Jews, or 
heretics, and require no explanation : 

CAN. 15. De conjugio eorum gui ex gentilitate veniunf. 

Propter copiam puellarum gentilibus minime in matri- 
monium dandee sunt virgines Christianee, ne setas in flore 
tumens in adulterium animse resolvatur. 

CAN. 16. De puellis fidelibus ne infidelibus conjungantur. 
Haeretici si se transferre noluerint ad Ecclesiam catholicam, 
uec ipsis catholicas dandas esse puellas ; sed neque Judseis 
neque hsereticis dare placuit, eo quod nulla possit esse societas 
fideli cum infideli : si contra interdictum fecerint parentes, 
abstineri per quinquennium placet. 

CAN. 17. De his qid fdias suas sacerdotibus gentilium con- 

jungunt. 

Si qui forte sacerdotibus idolorum filias suas junxerint, 
placuit nee in finem iis dandani esse communionem. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 145 

CAN. 18. DC sacerdotibus et ministris si mcecliaverint. 

Episeopi, presbyteres (!) et diacones si in ministerio positi 
detecti fuerint quod sint moechati, placuit propter scandalum 
et propter profamirn crimen nee in finem eos communionem 
accipere debere. 

"We must here, as in other places/ understand by mcechare, 
not only adultery in specie, but all fornication in general. 

CAN. 19. DC clericis negotia, et miindinas scctantibus. 

Episcopi, presbyteres (!) et diacones de locis suis negotiandi 
causa non discedarit, nee circumeuntes provincias qusestuosas 
nundinas sectentur : sane ad victum sibi conquirendum aut 
filium aut libertum aut mercenarium aut amicum aut quem- 
libet mittant, et si voluerint negotiari, intra provinciam nego- 
tientur. 

S. Cyprian, 2 in his work de Lapsis, also complains that many 
bishops left their churches and went into foreign provinces for 
the sake of merchandise, and to give themselves up to trade. 

CAN. 20. De clericis et laicis usurariis. 

Si quis clericorum detectus fuerit usuras accipere, placuit 
sum degradari et abstineri. Si quis etiam laicus accepisse 
probatur usuras, et promiserit correptus jam se cassaturum nee 
alterius exacturum, placuit ei veniam tribui : si vero in ea 
iniquitate duraverit, ab ecclesia esse projiciendum. 3 ^ 4^*^ 

When we consider the seventeenth Nicene canon, which 
dso forbids lending money at interest, we shall speak of the 
udgment of the ancient Church on this matter. The first 
Dart of our canon has been inserted by Gratian in the Corpus 
uris canon. 4 

CAN. 21. De Jiis quitardius ad ecclesiam accedunt. 

Si quis in civitate positus tres dominicas ad ecclesiam non 
tccesseiit, pauco tempore abstineatur, ut correptus esse videatur. 

As we have said before, 5 Hosius proposed and had passed at 
he Council of Sardica a like statute against those who neglected 

1 Cf. can. 2. 2 P. 183, ed. Bened. 

3 Cf. the art. by the author in the Tiibinyer Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 405 ff. 
* C. 5, dist. 47. 5 P. 135. 

K 



146 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

to go to church. It is the eleventh canon of the Greek and 
the fourteenth of the Latin text of the decrees of Sardica. 

CAN. 22. De catJiolicis in liceresim transeuntibus, si rever- 
tantur. 

Si quis de catholica Ecclesia ad hseresim transitum fecerit 
rursusque recurrent, placuit huic poenitentiam non esse dene- 
gandara, eo quod cognoverit peccatum suum ; qui etiam decem 
annis agat poenitentiam, cui post decem annos prsestari com- 
munio debet ; si vero infantes fuerint transducti, quod non suo 
vitio peccaverint incunctanter recipi debent. 

CAN. 23. De temporibusjejuniorum. 

Jejuuii superpositiones per singulos menses placuit celebrari, 
exceptis diebus duorum niensiuin Julii et Augusti propter 
quorumdam infirmitatem. 

The superponere (vTrepriOecrOai), or the superpositio (virep- 
Oecris), was an extension or prolongation of the fast beyond 
the usual duration (until the evening), 1 

CAN. 24. DC his qui in peregrc baptizantur, ut ad clerum non 
veniant. 

Omnes qui in peregre fuerint baptizati, eo quod eorum 
minime sit cognita vita, placuit ad clerum non esse promo- 
vendos in alienis provinciis. 

None could be admitted into the ranks of the clergy out of 

o/ 

the province in which he had been baptized. This canon 
passed into the Corpus JUT. can? 

CAN. 25. De epistolis communicators confessorum. 

Omnis qui attulerit literas confessorias, sublato nominf 
confessoris, eo quod omnes sub hac nominis gloria pas 
sim concutiant simplices, communicatorise ei dandas sun 
litterse. 

This canon has been interpreted in three ways. Mendoza 
Baronius, and others, when commenting upon it, thought of th 

1 Binterim, Denliourdlglcelten, Bd. v. Th. ii. S. 98 ; Bolimer, Cliristlid 
Alterilmmswissenscliaft, Bd. ii. S. 98. 
2 C. 4, dist. 98. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 147 

letters of peace (libelli pads) which the martyrs and confessors 
gave to the lapsi, to procure for them a speedy reception into 
the Church. These libelli pads, indeed, induced many bishops 
to admit a lapsus too promptly ; but our canon does not speak 
of this abuse : it does not complain that these letters deceived 
the bishops : it says, concutiant simplices. If the canon had 
been intended to warn the bishops against these libelli pads, 
it would certainly not have said that they should give to the 
lapsis communicatorias literas ; for this was what was wrong, 
that they were admitted too soon to communion. Aubespine 1 
and Herbst 2 were of the opinion that the canon had reference 
to some Christians who, before going a journey, did not ask 
for letters of communion from their bishop, but preferred 
letters of recommendation given by their confessor, regarding 
these as more important, and that this practice was forbidden 
by one synod. This, again, is a mistake. The meaning of 
the canon is this : " If a Christian, wishing to take a journey, 
submits to his bishop the draught of a letter of recommenda 
tion, in which it is said that the bearer is a confessor, the 
Dishop must erase the word confessor, sullato nomine confessoris, 
oecause many simple people are deceived by this title, and the 
)ishop shall give common letters communicatorias" 3 

CAN. 26. Ut omni scibbato jejunetur. 

Errorem placuit corrigi, ut omni sabbati die superpositiones 
elebremus. 

The meaning of this canon also is equivocal. The title 
eems to imply that it orders a severe fast every Saturday, 
nd the suppression of the contrary practice followed up to 
bat time. It is thus explained by Garsias in Binius* and 
lendoza. 5 However, as the sixty-fifth apostolic canon pre- 
:ribes that, except Holy Saturday, no Saturday should be a 
ist-day, our canon may also mean, " The ancient error of 
.sting strictly every Saturday must be abolished : " that is to 

1 In Mansi, ii. 42. 2 Quartalsch. 1821, S. 30. 

3 Cf. Remi Ceillier, I.e. p. 665; Migne, Die. des Candles, i. 820; and Dr. 
iinchen, "Abhandlung iiber das erste Concil von Aries" (dissertation upon 
e first Council of Aries), in the Bonner Zeitschrifl fur Philosophic u. Theoloyie, 
?ft 27, S. 51 ff. 
4 Mansi, ii. 31. 5 m dt p< 2 27. 



148 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

say, the superpositio is ordered only for Holy Saturday ; and for 
other Saturdays, as for Fridays, the statio only, that is to say, 
the half-fast is ordered. But in comparing this canon with 
the forty-third, where the same expressions are again found, 
we see that the ut determines what was to be henceforth 
observed, and not in what the error consisted. According to 
that, our decree would mean that the superpositio must be 
observed every Saturday, and we must adopt the explanation 
of Garsias. 

CAN. 27. De dericis ut extraneas fceminas in domo non 
habeant. 

Episcopus vel quilibet alius clericus aut sororem aut filiam 
virginem dicatam Deo tantum secum habeat ; extraneam 
nequaquam habere placuit. 

This canon is more severe than the third similar canon of 
the Council of Nicsea. It allows the clergy to have with them 
in their house (a) only their sisters, or their own daughters ; 
(&) and also that these must be virgins, and consecrated to 
God, that is, having vowed their virginity to God. 1 

CAN. 28. De oblationibus eorum qui non communicant. 

Episcopum placuit ab eo, qui non communicat, munus acci- 
pere non debere. 

In the same way as in the first canon, we must here under 
stand by those qui non communicant, Christians who, like peni 
tents or catechumens, are not in the communio (community," 
and who therefore do not receive the holy Eucharist. Th 
meaning of the canon is : " The bishop cannot accept at th 
altar the offerings (ollata) of those who do not communicate. 

CAN. 29. De energumenis gualiter Ticibmntur in ecclesia. 

Energumenus qui ab erratico spiritu exagitur, hujus nome 
neque ad altare cum oblatione esse recitandum, nee permitter 
dum ut sua manu in ecclesia minis tret. 

This canon, like the seventy-eighth apostolic canon, exclud( 
demoniacs possessed by the evil spirit from active participatic 
in divine service : they cannot present any offerings ; the 

1 Cf. the nineteenth canon of Ancyra. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 149 

names cannot be read among those who are inscribed in the 
diptychs as offering the sacrifice (diptyeliis offerentium) ; and 
they must not be permitted to hold any office in the Church. 1 

CAN. 30. De his qiii post lavacrum moechati sunt, ne subdia- 
cones fiant. 

Subdiaconos eos ordinari non debere qui in adolescentia sua 
fuerint moechati, eo quod postmodum per subreptionem ad 
altiorem gradum promoveantur : vel si qui sunt in pra3teritum 
ordinati, amoveantur. 

CAN. 31. De adolescentibus qui post lavacrum mcechati sunt. 

Adolescentes qui post Mem lavacri salutaris fuerint mcechati, 
curn duxerint uxores, acta legitima pcenitentia placuit ad com- 
munionem eos admitti. 

These two canons need no explanation. 

CAN. 32. De excommunicatis presbyteris ut in necessitate 

communionem dent. 

Apud presbyterum, si quis gravi lapsu in ruinam mortis 
incident, placuit agere pcenitentiam non debere, sed potius 
ipud episcopum : cogente tamen infirmitate necesse est pres- 
}yterem (!) communionem prasstare debere, et diaconem si ei 
usserit sacerdos. 

This canon is quite in conformity with the ancient custom, 
According to which the bishop only, and not a priest, could 
eceive a penitent into the Church. It was only in a case of 
xtreme necessity that a priest, or, according to the orders of 
. priest, a deacon, could give a penitent the communion, that 
3, could administer to him the eucharistic bread in sign of 
econciliation : deacons often gave the communion in the 
ncient Church. 2 The title of the canon is evidently wrong, 
nd ought to be thus worded : De presbyteris ut excommuni- 
itis in necessitate, etc. It is thus, indeed, that Mansi read it 
i several manuscripts. 

1 Cf. below, the thirty-seventh canon. 

2 Binterim (Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 432 f.) thus understands this canon : 
Even in a case of urgent necessity, the priest only ought to give the com- 
union ; but if he asks it, the deacon may help him." 



150 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

CAN. 33. De episcopis et ministris ut db uxoribus abstineant. 

Placuit in totum prohibere episcopis, presbyteris et diaconi- 
bus vel omnibus clericis positis in ministerio abstinere se a 
conjugibus suis et non generare filios : quicunque vero fecerit, 
ab honore clericatus exterminetur. 

This celebrated canon contains the most ancient command 
of celibacy. The bishops, priests, and deacons, and in general 
all the clergy, qui in ministerio positi sunt, that is, who are 
specially employed in the service of the altar, 1 ought no longer 
to have any conjugal intercourse with their wives, under pain 
of deposition, if they were marrie.d when they took orders. 
The history of the Council of JSTicsea will give us the oppor 
tunity of considering the question of celibacy in the primitive 
Church. We will only add here, that the wording of our canon 
is defective : prohibere abstinere et non generare. The canon 
seems to order what, on the contrary, it would prohibit, viz. : 
" It is forbidden that the clergy should abstain from their 
wives." A similarly inexact expression is found in the 
eightieth canon. 

CAN. 34. Ne cerei in ccemeteriis incenclantur. 

Cereos per diem placuit in coemeterio non incendi, inquie- 
tandi enim sanctorum spiritus non sunt. Qui hsec non obser 
vaverint arceantur ab Ecclesise communione. 

It is forbidden to light wax candles during the day in ceme 
teries, for fear of troubling the spirits of the saints. Garsia 
thus explains this canon : " for fear of troubling and distracl 
ing the faithful, who pray in the cemeteries." He thus mal 
sancti the synonym of faithful. Binterim has taken it i 
the same sense: 2 sanctorum with him is synonymous wit 
sancta agentium ; and he translates it, " so that the pries; 
who fulfil their holy offices, may not be distracted/ Baroniv 
on the contrary, says : " Many neophytes brought the custo 
from paganism, of lighting many wax candles upon toml 

1 That this is the true meaning, is seen from the parallel passage of 
Council of Carthage of 390, c. ii., where it is said that bishops, priests, t 
Levites, vel qui sacramentis divinis inserviunt, are pledged to celibacy. Ha 
i. 951. 

3 Kathotik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 435. 



SYNOD OF ELVIHA. 151 

The Synod forbids this, "because metaphorically it troubles the 
souls of the dead; that is to say, this superstition wounds 
them." Aubespine gives a fourth explanation. He begins 
with the supposition that the bishops of Elvira partook of the 
opinion, then very general, that the souls of the dead hovered 
over their tombs for some time. The Synod consequently 
forbade that wax candles should be lighted by day, perhaps 
to abolish a remnant of paganism, but also to prevent the 
repose of the souls of the dead from being troubled. 1 

CAN. 35. Ncfcemince in ccemcteriis pervigiUnt. 
Placuit prohiberi ne fceminse in coemeterio pervigilent, eo 
quod ssepe sub obtentu orationis latenter scelera comrnittunt. 

CAN. 36. Nepicturc/R in ecclesia fiant. 

Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur 
et adoratur in parietibus depingatur. 

These canons are easy to understand : we have elsewhere 
explained why the ancient Church did not tolerate images. 2 
Binterim and Aubespine do not believe in a complete ex 
clusion : they think that the Church in general, and the Synod 
of Elvira in particular, wished to proscribe only a certain kind 
of images. Binterim 3 believes that this Synod forbade only 
one thing, namely, that any one might hang images in the 
Church according to his fancy, and often therefore inad 
missible ones. Aubespine thinks that our canon forbids only 
images representing God (because it says adoratur), and not 
other pictures, especially those of saints. But the canon also 
says colitur, and the prohibition is conceived in very general 
terms. 4 

CAN. 37. De energumenis non laptizatis. 
Eos qui ab immundis spiritibus vexantur, si in fine mortis 
fuerint constituti, baptizari placet : si fideles fuerint, dandam 

1 Of. Nat. Alex. Ecdes. Hist. ssec. iii. I.e. iv. 143. 

2 Cf. the art. Christusbilder, by Dr. Hefele, in the Klrchenlexlcon of Wetzer 
et Welte, Bd. ii. S. 519 f. 

8 Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 436. 

* Cf. Nat. Alex, ficcles. Hist. SEGC. iii. I.e. iv. 141 sq., 145, nota. 



152 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

esse communionem. Prohibendum etiam ne lucernas M pub- 
lice accendant ; si facere contra interdictum voluerint, absti- 
neatur a communione. 

This canon, like the 29th, speaks of demoniacs. If they 
are catechumens, they may be baptized when at the point of 
death (in articulo mortis), but not before that. If they are 
baptized, the communion may be administered to them when 
at the point of death, but not before. However, as the 29th 
canon had before forbidden any ministry in the Church to 
demoniacs, ours particularly adds that they could not fulfil 
the least service in the Church, not even light the lamps. 
Perhaps it may have been the custom to have the lamps of the 
Church lighted by those who were to be baptized, or by those 
who were to communicate, on the day when they were to 
receive this sacrament ; and the Synod forbids that demo 
niacs should do so, even if, in spite of their illness, they 
were able to receive a sacrament. The inscription of the 
canon does not correspond to its whole tenor. 

CAN. 38. Ut in necessitate et fideles baptizent. 

Loco peregre navigantes aut si ecclesia proximo non fuerit, 
posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suuni integrum habet nee sit 
bigamus, baptizare in necessitate infirmitatis positum, cate- 
chumenum, ita ut si supervixerit ad episcopum eum perducat, 
ut per manus impositionem perfici possit. 

During a sea voyage, or in general, if no church is near, a 
layman who has not soiled his baptismal robe (by apostasy), 
and is not a bigamist, may baptize a catechumen who is at 
the point of death ; the bishop ought afterwards to lay hands 
on the newly baptized, to confirm him. 1 

CAN. 39. De gentilibus si in discrimine laptimri expetunt. 

Gentiles si in infirmitate desideraverint sibi manum im- 
poni, si fuerit eomm ex aliqua parte honesta vita, placuit eis 
manum imponi et fieri Christianos. 

This canon has been interpreted in two different ways. 
Binius, 2 Katerkamp, 3 and others, hold that the imposition of 

1 Cf. what is said above on the "baptism of heretics, p. 112. 

3 In Mansi, ii. p. 40. 3 Kirchengeschichtc, ii. S. 21. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 153 

hands spoken of in this canon does not mean confirmation, 
but a ceremony by means of which any one was admitted 
into the lowest class of catechumens. These interpreters 
appeal principally to the pretended seventh canon of the 
second (Ecumenical Council. 1 We there read: "We admit 
them only as pagans : the first day we make them Christians 
(in the widest sense) ; the second, catechumens ; the third, 
we exorcise them," etc. etc. According to that, our canon 
would say : " When a heathen, having a good name, desires 
during an illness that hands should be laid upon him, it 
ought to be done, that he may become a Christian" That is 
to say, he ought by the imposition of hands to be admitted 
among those who wish to be Christians, consequently among 
the Christians in the widest sense. The forty-fifth canon 
also takes the word catechumenus as synonymous with Chris 
tian. Besides, we find Constantine the Great received the 
imposition of hands at the baths of Helenopolis before his bap 
tism : a ceremony of this kind then preceded the reception of 
the first sacrament. 2 Relying upon these considerations, the 
commentators we mentioned say that the canon of Elvira 
does not speak of baptism, because this could not be admi 
nistered until after much longer trial. The provost of the 
Cathedral at Koln, Dr. Miinchen, gives another explanation 
in his dissertation upon the first Synod of Aries. 3 According 
to him, 

a. As the thirty-seventh canon allows the baptism of 
demoniacs, it is not probable that they would be more severe 
with respect to ordinary sick persons in the thirty-ninth 
canon. On the contrary, the Church has always been tender 
towards the sick : she has always hastened to confer baptism 
upon them, because it is necessary to salvation ; and for that 
reason she introduced clinical baptism. 

I. In the thirty-eighth canon the Church allows a layman 
to baptize one who should fall seriously ill during a sea 
voyage, but not to confirm him. She certainly, then, would 

1 "We shall prove, when the time comes, that this canon does not belong to the 
second (Ecumenical Council, but is a little more recent. 

2 Cf. below, sec. 52. 

3 Banner Zeltschrift filr Plulos. u. Kathol Theologle, Heft 26, S. 80 



154 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

allow this sick person to be confirmed if a bishop were pre 
sent in the ship. 

c. As for one who should fall ill upon land, he could easily 
call a bishop to him ; and therefore the case foreseen by the 
thirty-eighth canon does not apply to him : it would be easy 
to confer baptism and confirmation on him. 

d. The thirty-ninth canon, then, means : " Whoso shall fall 
ill upon land, and who can summon a bishop to him, may 
receive baptism and confirmation at the same time." 

e. Understood in this way, the canon is more in unison 
with the two preceding, and with the practice of the ancient 
Church towards the sick. 

CAN. 40. Ne id quod idolotliytum est fideles accipiant. 

Prohibere placuit, ut quum rationes suas accipiunt posses- 
sores, quidquid ad idolum datum fuerit, accepto non ferant; 
si post interdictum fecerint, per quinquennii spatia temporum 
a communione esse arcendos. 

That is to say : When the proprietors of lands and houses 
receive their rents (rationes), for example, fruits from their 
farmers, who perhaps are still pagans, they ought not to admit 
anything which had been sacrificed to the gods, under pain of 
five years excommunication. 

CAN. 41. Ut proliibeant domini idola colere servis suis. 

Admoneri placuit fideles, ut in quantum possunt prohibeant 
lie idola in domibus suis habeant ; si vero vim metuunt ser- 
vorum, vel se ipsos puros conservent ; si non fecerint, alienl 
ab ecclesia habeantur. 

The preceding canon had shown that many Christians had 
farmers who were pagans ; the present canon supposes the 
case of a Christian having heathen slaves, and it enacts : 

a. That he ought not, even in this case, to tolerate idols 
in his house. 

b. That if he cannot conform to this rule, and must fear 
the slaves on account of their number, he may leave them 
their idols ; but he must so much the more keep at a dis 
tance from them, and w^atch against every approach to 
idolatry. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 155 

CAN. 42. De his qui ad fidem veniunt quando laptizentur. 

Eos qui ad primarn fidem credulitatis accedimt, si bonse 
fuerint conversations, intra biennium temporum placuit ad 
baptism! gratiam admitti debere, nisi infirmitate compellente 
coegerit ratio velocius subvenire periclitanti vel gratiam pos- 
tulanti. 

He who has a good name, and wishes to become a Chris 
tian, must be a catechumen for two years : then he may be 
baptized. If he should fall ill, and desire the grace of bap 
tism, it may be granted to him before the expiration of two 
years. 

CAN. 43. De cdebratione Pentecostes. 

Pravam institutionem emendari placuit juxta auctoritatem 
Scripturarum, ut cuncti diem Pentecostes celebremus, ne si 
quis non fecerit, novam hseresim induxisse notetur. 

Some parts of Spain had allowed the bad custom of cele 
brating the fortieth day after Easter, not the fiftieth ; conse 
quently the Ascension of Christ, and not Pentecost. Several 
ancient manuscripts, indeed, contain this addition : non qua- 
dragesimam. 1 The same addition is found in an ancient abridg 
ment of the canons of Elvira, with which Mansi makes us 
acquainted : 2 post Pascha quinquagesima teneatur, non quadra- 
gesima. We learn also from Cassian, that in the primitive 
Church some Christians wished to close the paschal season 
with the feast of the Ascension, that is, at the fortieth day. 
They regarded all Easter-time only as a remembrance of 
Christ s sojourn among His disciples during the forty days 
which followed His resurrection ; and therefore they wished 
to close this period with the feast of the Ascension. 3 Herbst 
supposes that a Montanist party in Spain wished to suppress* 
the feast of Pentecost altogether, because the Montanists be 
lieved that the Holy Spirit did not descend until He came in 
Montanus, 4 who was regarded by his followers as the Com 
forter. 

1 Mansi, I.e. p. 13 ; Bruns, I.e. p. 7, not. 16 ; Mendoza in Mansi, Lc. p. 295. 

2 I.e. p. 21 sq. 

3 Cassian, Gollat. xxi. c. 20 ; Mendoza in Mansi, I.e. p. 297. 

4 TuUnrjer Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 39 f. 



156 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

CAN. 44. De meretricibus paganis si convertantur. 

Meretrix quse aliquando fuerit et postea habuerit maritum, 
si postmodum ad credulitatem venerit; incunctanter placuit 
esse recipiendam. 

If a pagan courtezan has given up this abominable way of 
life, and is married, being still a pagan, there is no particular 
obstacle to her admission into the Church. She ought to be 
treated as other pagan women. 

CAN. 45. De catechumenis qui ecclesiam non frequentant. 

Qui aliquando fuerit catechumenus et per infinita tempora 
nunquam ad ecclesiam accesserit, si eum de clero quisque 
cognoverit esse Christianum, aut testes aliqui extiterint fideles, 
placuit ei baptismum non negari, eo quod veterem hominem 
dereliquisse videatur. 

The case is here imagined of a catechumen who has not 
been to church for a long time, probably because he did not 
wish to be known as a Christian during a time of persecution ; 
but afterwards his conscience awakes, and he asks to be bap 
tized. The canon ordains that if he is known to the clergy 
of the Church to which he belongs, and they know him to be 
a Christian, i.e. a believer in Christ, or if some of the faithful 
can attest this, he shall be admitted to baptism, because he 
appears to have put off the lukewarmness of the old man. 

Aubespine 1 gives another interpretation which appears 
forced, and shows that he most probably had not the text be 
fore him. According to him, the meaning of the canon would 
be : " When a catechumen has fallen away for a long time, 
and still after all desires baptism and to become a Chris 
tian, if he should suddenly lose speech, for example, from illness 
(the canon says not a word of all that), he may be baptized, 
provided a clergyman or several of the laity attest that he has 
desired baptism, and has become a real Christian." The 
Abbe Migne has placed this explanation in his Dictionary of 
the Councils? 

CAN. 46. De fidelibus si apostaverint giiamdiu pceniteant. 
Si quis fidelis apostata per infinita tempora ad ecclesiam 

1 In Mansi, ii. 50. a I.e. p. 824. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 157 

non accesserit, si tamen aliquando fuerit reversus nee fuerit 
idololator, post decem annos placuit communionem accipere. 

The sin of a Christian who should absent himself from 
church for a long time was naturally much greater than that 
of a catechumen. For this reason, the baptized Christian who 
has in fact apostatized is only received to the communion 
after a ten years penance, and even then if he has not sacri 
ficed to the gods. It appears to us that this canon alludes to 
the time of Diocletian s persecution ; for during that terrible 
time more than one cowardly Christian did not go to church, 
gave no sign of Christian life, and thus apostatized in fact, 
without positively offering sacrifice to the idols. 

CAN. 4*7. De eo gui uxorem habens scepius mcecJiatur. 

Si quis fidelis habens uxorem non semel sed ssepe fuerit 
moechatus in fine mortis est conveniendus : quod si se pro- 
miserit cessaturum, cletur ei communio : si resuscitatus rursus 
fuerit mcechatus, placuit ulterius non ludere eum de com- 
munione pacis. 

If a Christian who is married, and has been often guilty 
of adultery, is near death, they must go to see him (est con- 
veniendus), and ask him whether, if he should recover, he 
promises to amend his ways. If he promises, the holy com 
munion should be administered to him ; if he should recover, 
and should again be guilty of adultery, the holy communion 
must not be allowed to be thus despised, it must hence 
forth be refused to him, even in articulo mortis. The sixty- 
ninth and seventy-eighth canons complete the meaning of 
this one. 

CAN. 48. De laptizatis ut nihil accipiat clems. 

Emendari placuit ut hi qui baptizantur, ut fieri solebat, 
numos in concha non mittant, ne sacerdos quod gratis accepit 
pretio distrahere videatur. Neque pedes eorum lavandi sunt a 
sacerdotibus vel clericis. 

This canon forbids at the same time two things relative to 
baptism : 

1. It was the custom in Spain for the neophytes, at the 
time of their baptism, to put an offering into the shell which 



158 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

had been used at the baptism. This offering, afterwards called 
the stole-rights/ was to be suppressed. 

2. The second part of the canon shows that there was the 
same custom in certain parts of Spain as at Milan 2 and in 
Gaul/ but which, from the testimony of St. Ambrose, did not 
exist at Eome, viz. that the bishop and clergy should wash, 
the feet of the newly baptized when they left the baptismal 
font. Our Synod forbids this, and this canon has passed into 
the Corp. jur. can* 

CAN. 49. De frugilus fiddium ne a Judceis lenedicantur. 

Admoneri placuit possessores, ut non patiantur fructus suos, 
quos a Deo percipiunt cum gratiarum actione, a Judaeis bene- 
dici, ne nostram irritam et infirmam faciant benedictionem : 
si quis post interdictum facere usurpaverit, penitus ab ecclesia 
abjiciatur. 

The Jews were so numerous and so powerful in Spain 
during the first centuries of the Christian era, that they might 
at one time have hoped to be able to Judaize the whole 
country. According to the monuments which, however, are 
of doubtful authority they established themselves in Spain 
in the time of King Solomon. 6 It is more likely that they 
crossed from Africa to the Spanish peninsula only about a 
hundred years before Christ. There they soon increased in 
number and importance, and could energetically carry 011 their 
work of proselytizing. 6 This is the reason that the Synod of 
Elvira had to forbid to the priests and the laity all intimate 
intercourse with Jews (can. 50), and especially marriage (can. 
1 6) ; for there is no doubt that at this period many Chris 
tians of high rank in Spain became Jews, as Jost shows in 
his work. 7 



1 Something like surplice-fees. ED. 

2 Cf. Arnbros, lib. iii. de Sacramentis, c. i. p. 362, vol. ii. ed. Bened. 

3 Mabillon in Missalibus Gothico et Gallicano veteri. Cf. Ceillier, I.e. iii. 670, 
and Herbst in TuUnger Quartalsch. 1821, S. 40. 

4 C. 104, causa i. q. 1. 

5 Jost, Geschickte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccdbder bis auf unsere 
Tagc, Berlin 1825, Thl. v. S. 13. 

G Jost, I.e. S. 17. 

7 I.e. S. 32-34. See Hefele on Cardinal Ximenes, 2d ed. S. 256 ff. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 159 

CAN. 50. De Ckristianis qui cum Judceis vescuntur. 

Si vero quis clericus vel fidelis cum Judseis cibum sump- 
serit, placuit eura a communione abstineri, ut debeat emen- 
dari. 

CAN. 51. De hcereticis ut ad clerum non promoveantur. 

Ex omni hseresi fidelis si venerit, minime est ad clerum 
promovendus : vel si qui sunt in prasteritum ordinati, sine 
dubio deponantur. 

These canons are easy to understand. 

CAN. 52. De his qui in ecclesia libcllos famosos ponunt. 

Hi qui inventi fuerint libellos famosos in ecclesia ponere 
anatliematizentur. 

This canon forbids the affixing of satires (libellos famosos 1 ) 
in churches, or the reading of them. It has been inserted in 
the Corp. JUT. can? 

CAN. 53. De episcopis qui excommunicato alicno communi 
cant. 

Placuit cunctis ut ab eo episcopo quis recipiat communio- 
nem a quo abstentus in crimine aliquo quis fuerit ; quod si 
alius episcopus prassumpserit eum admitti, illo adhuc minime 
faciente vel consentiente a quo fuerit communione privatus, 
sciat se hujusmodi causas inter fratres esse cum status sui 
periculo prsestaturum. 

One excommunicated by a bishop can only be restored by 
the bishop who condemned him. Another bishop receiving 
him into communion, unless the first bishop acts at the same 
time, or approves of the reconciliation, must answer for it be 
fore his brethren, that is to say, before the provincial synod, 
and must run the danger of being deprived of his office 
(status). 

CAN. 5 4. De parentibus qui fidem sponsaliorum frangunt. 

Si qui parentes fidem fregerint sponsaliorum, triennii tern- 
pore abstineantur ; si tamen idem sponsus vel sponsa in gravi 
crimine fuerint deprehensi, erunt excusati parentes ; si in 

1 Cf. Suetonius, Vita Octavii Aug. c. 55. 2 C. 3, causa v. q. 1. 



160 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

iisdem fuerit vitium et polluerint se, superior sententia ser- 
vetur. 

If the parents of those who are betrothed fail to keep the 
promises made at the betrothal, these parents shall be ex 
cluded from the communion for three years, unless either of 
the betrothed persons be convicted of a very serious fault. 
In this case, the parents may break the engagement. If the 
betrothed have sinned together, the first arrangement con 
tinues ; that is, the parents cannot then separate them. This 
canon is found in the Corp. juris can} 

CAX. 55. De saccrdotibus gentilium quijam non sacrificant. 

Sacerdotes qui tantum coronas portant, nee sacrificant nee 
de suis sumptibus aliquid ad idola prsestant, placuit post bien- 
nium accipere communionem. 

It may be asked whether the word sacerdotes is to be under 
stood as referring to pagan priests who wished to be admitted 
as Christians, or to Christians who, as we have seen above 
(can. 2), still bore the office of flamines. Aubespine is of the 
latter opinion, and according to him the canon would have 
this meaning : " The Christian who bears the office of flamen, 
and wears the distinctive sign that is, the crown without 
having sacrificed himself, or having contributed money to 
pagan sacrifices, must be excluded from eucharistic com 
munion for two years." Aubespine gives the two following, 
reasons in support of his explanation : (a.) When a pagan 
priest wished to become a Christian, he was not kept longer or 
more strictly than others as a catechumen, even when he had 
himself offered sacrifice. (6.) If it had referred to a pagan 
priest wishing to become a Christian, the Synod would have 
said, placuit post Uennium accipere lavacrum (baptism), and 
not accipere communionem. This latter expression is used only 
for those who have been excluded for some time from the 
Church, and are admitted afresh into her bosom. 

For our part, we think that this fifty-fifth canon is nothing 
but a complement of the second and third canons, and that it 
forms with them the following gradation : 

Can. 2. Christians who, as flamines, have sacrificed to idols, 

1 C. 1, causa xxxi. q. 3. 



SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 161 

and given public pagan games, cannot receive the communion, 
even when at the point of death. 

Can. 3. If they have not offered sacrifices, but have had 
the games celebrated, they may communicate at the close of 
their life, after a previous penance. 

Can. 55. If they have not offered sacrifice, nor contributed 
by their fortune to pagan sacrifices (and to such public 
games), they may receive the communion after two years of 
penance. 

This gradation is continued in the two following canons, 
the fifty-sixth and fifty-seventh : they refer to Christians who 
have not been flamines, but who have borne other offices in a 
heathen state, and so have been brought into relation with 
paganism. 

The fifty-fifth canon evidently alludes to a former and not 
far distant time of persecution, during which Christians feared 
to refuse the office of flamines which fell to their lot, and by 
a half compliance wore the distinctive mark of their office, the 
crown, in order to pass uninjured through the time of perse 
cution. 

CAN. 56. De magistratibus et duumviri*. 

Magistratus vero uno anno quo agit duumviratum, prohi- 
bendum placet ut se ab ecclesia cohibeat. 

What the consuls were at Eome, the duumviri were, on 
a small scale, in the Eoman municipalities : their office also 
lasted only a year. These duumviri were obliged, by virtue 
of their office, to watch over pagan priests personally, and the 
temples of the town ; they had to preside at public solemni 
ties, in processions, etc., which, like all the other national 
feasts of the Eomans, had always more or less a semi-religious 
and pagan character. For this reason the Synod forbade the 
duumviri to enter the Church as long as they were in office. 
In limiting itself to this prohibition, it gave proof of great 
moderation and of wise consideration, which we ought to ap 
preciate. An absolute prohibition to hold this office would 
have given up the charge of the most important towns to 
pagans. But the Council is much more severe in the fol 
lowing canon. 

Ii 



162 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

CAN. 5 7. De his gui vestimenta ad ornandam pompam dede- 
runt. 

Matronse vel earum mariti vestimenta sua ad ornandam 
saeculariter pompam non dent ; et si fecerint, triennio absti- 
neantur. 

This canon is directed against Christians who should lend 
their garments for worldly shows, i.e. for public, half-heathen 
ish religious processions. They are punished with three years 
of excommunication. But why are they treated so much 
more severely than the duumviri ? Because these men and 
women were not obliged to lend their attire, whilst the 
duumviri were fulfilling their public duty as citizens. Per 
haps also some gave their garments, that they might not be 
suspected during the persecutions. 

CAN. 58. De Ms qui communicatorias litter as portant, ut de 
fide interrogentur. 

Placuit ubique et maxime in eo loco, in quo prima cathedra 
constitute est episcopatus, ut interrogentur hi qui communica 
torias litteras tradunt an omnia recte habeant suo testimonies 
comprobata. 

In Africa no metropolitan rights were attached to particu 
lar towns : they always belonged to the oldest bishop of the 
province, whose bishopric was then called prima sedes} 
Carthage only was the metropolitan see. It appears to have 
been the same in Spain before Constantine the Great divided 
that country into seven political provinces, which entailed 
the division into ecclesiastical provinces. This may explain 
why the Bishop of Acci presided at the Synod of Elvira : he 
was probably the oldest of all the bishops present. What 
is elsewhere called prima sedes in our canon is prima cathe 
dra ; and the bishops of the prima cathedra were to question 
Christian travellers about their respective dioceses, the latter 
were to present their recommendatory letters, and were to 
be asked if they could affirm that all was in a satisfactory 
state. 

1 Cf. De Marca, de Primatibus, p. 10, in the Appendix to the book de Concor 
dici sacerdotii et imperil, and Van Espen. Commentar. in canones et decreta, 
p. 315. 



SYNOD OF ELVIKA. 163 

CAN. 59. De fiddibus ne ad Capitoliwni causa sacrificandi 
ascendant. 

Prohibendum ne quis Cliristianns ut gentilis ad idolum 
Capitolii causa sacrificandi ascendat et videat ; quod si fecerit, 
pari crimine teneatur : si fuerit fidelis, post decem annos acta 
pcenitentia recipiatur. 

Like Borne, many municipalities had a capitol, in the court 
of which sacrifices were offered to the gods, and many Chris 
tians were present at the ceremonies of the pagan worship. 
Was it from curiosity ? was it in order to shelter themselves 
from inquiry, not to be known during the persecution, and to 
pass for heathen ? This is what we are unable to decide. At 
any rate, the Synod declared that 

a. Any Christian, either baptized or a catechumen, who 
should be present at the sacrifices, should be considered as 
having offered sacrifice himself. 

1). Consequently any Christian who has been present at 
these sacrifices should be excommunicated and a penitent for 
ten years. The Synod says nothing about the punishment of 
guilty catechumens: in every case they were in general 
punished less severely than the faithful, and perhaps the fourth 
canon was applied to them by analogy. 

CAN. 60. De his gid destruentes idola occiduntur. 

Si quis idola fregerit et ibidem fuerit occisus, quatenus in 
Evangelic scriptum non est neque invenietur sub apostolis 
unquam factum, placuit in numero eum non recipi martyrum. 

It happened sometimes that too zealous Christians would 
destroy the idols, and have to pay for their boldness with their 
life. The Synod decrees that they must not be considered as 
martyrs, for the gospel does not require deeds of this kind, and 
the apostles did not act in this way ; but they considered it 
praiseworthy if a Christian, whom they might wish to oblige 
:o offer sacrifice to an idol, should overthrow the statue, and 
oreak it, as Prudentius Clemens relates with commendation of 
Eulalia, who suffered martyrdom in Spain in 304, and there- 
bre a short time previous to this Synod. 1 

1 Prudentius Clemens, PeristepTi. iii. in lion. Eulalice, p. 211, ed. Obba. Cf. 
iuinart, Acta Martyr, ed. Galura, iii. 69 sqq. 



164 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

CAN. 61. De his gid duabus sororibus copulantur. 

Si quis post obitum uxoris suse sororem ejus duxerit et 
ipsa fuerit fidelis, quinquennium a communione plaeuit ab- 
stineri, nisi forte velocius dari pacem necessitas coegerit in- 
firmitatis. 

When S. Basil the Great ascended the archiepiscopal throne 
of Ceesarea, he forbade that a husband, after the death of his 
wife, should marry her sister; and when some one, of the 
name of Diodorus, reproached him upon this subject, Basil 
defended himself in a letter, which has been preserved, and 
proved that such marriages had always been prohibited at 
Csesarea. 1 The Spanish Fathers of Elvira shared S. Basil s 
opinions, as also did the Synod of Neocsesarea of 314, can. 2, 
as we shall see hereafter. It is well known that, according to 
canon law, these marriages are both forbidden and declared to 
be invalid. 2 

CAN. 62. De aurigis et pantomimis si convertantur. 

Si auriga aut pantomimus credere voluerint, placuit ut prius 
artibus suis renuntient, et tune demum suscipiantur, ita ut 
ulterius ad ea non revertantur, qui si facere contra interdictum 
tentaverint, projiciantur ab ecclesia. 

The " Apostolical Constitutions" J contain the same decree. 
On the subject of the repugnance of the ancient Church for all 
these pantomimic scenes, cf. Hefele, " Eigorismus in dem Leben 
iind den Ansichten der alten Christen" (Severity in the Lives 
and Opinions of the early Christians), an essay published in 
the Tulinger TJieol Quartalschrift, 1841 .(S. 396 if.). 

The following series of canons treats of carnal sins : 

CAN. 63. De uxoribus quce filios exadulterio meant. 

Si qua per adulterium absente marito suo conceperit, idque 
post f acinus occiderit, placuit nee in finem dandam esse com- 
rnunionem, eo quod geminaverit scelus. 

1 S. Basilii Epist. 160, Opp. iii. 249, ed. Bened. 

2 C. 1 and 8, x., de Consanguinitate el ajfinitate (iv. 14). Cf. Condi. Trid 
sessio 24, cap. 4, de ref. matrim. 

3 Lib. viii. c. 32. 



SYNOD OF ELVIEA. 165 

CAN. 6 4. De foeminis quce usque ad mortem cum ahenis viris 
adulterant. 

Si qua usque in finem mortis sure cum alieno viro fuerit 
moechata, placuit, nee in finem dandam ei esse communionem. 
Si vero eum reliquerit, post decem annos accipiat communionem 
acta legitima poenitentia. 

CAN. 65. De adult eris uxoribus clericorum. 

Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit moechata et scierit earn maritus 
suus moechari et non earn statim projecerit, nee in finem 
accipiat communionem, ne ab his qui exemplum bonce con- 
versationis esse debent, ab eis videantur scelerum magisteria 
procedere. 

The Shepherd of Hernias l had before, like this canon, strin 
gently commanded not only the clergy, but all Christians, not 
to continue to live conjugally with an adulterous spouse, who 
would not amend her ways, but would persevere in sin. 2 Dr. 
Herbst says, that what made the sixty-fifth canon necessary 
was probably the very frequent case of married men having 
taken orders, and not being able to have conjugal intercourse 
with their wives, who were therefore on that very account 
easily tempted to forget themselves. 3 

The series of canons against carnal sins is continued in the 
following, which forbids marriage with a daughter-in-law : 

CAN. 66. De his qiii privignas suas ducunt. 
Si quis privignam suam duxerit uxorem, eo quod sit incestus 
placuit nee in finem dandam esse communionem. 

CAN. 67. De conjugio catechumence fcemince. 

Prohibendum ne qua fidelis vel catechumena aut comatos 
iiit viros cinerarios habeant : quEecumque hoc fecerint, a com- 
aiunione arceantur. 

If we attach any importance to the title of this canon, it 
mist be thought to indicate that Christian women, whether 
catechumens or baptized, were forbidden to marry those desig- 

1 Lib. ii. mandat. iv. 

2 See Hefele s ed. Opp. Patrum apostolicorum, p. 353, ed, 3. 

3 Quartacschrift, 1821, S. 43. 



166 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

nated by the name of comedos and cinerarias. In other manu 
scripts we read comicos and scenicos. If the latter reading is 
the true one, the meaning of the canon is very clear "A 
Christian woman must not marry an actor ; " and this prohibi 
tion would explain the aversion of the ancient Church to the 
theatre, which has been before mentioned. But it is probable 
that, not having been able to find out the meaning of the 
words comati and cinerarii, later copyists have altered them, 
and changed them into comici and scenici. Imagining that here 
was a prohibition of marriage, they could not understand why 
a Christian woman was not to marry a man having long hair, 
or even a hairdresser. We believe that Aubespine is right 
when he reminds us that many pagan women had foreign 
slaves, and especially hairdressers, in their service, who mi 
nistered not only to the needs of luxury, but to the secret 
satisfaction of their passions. Perhaps these effeminate slaves 
these spadones encouraging the licentiousness of their 
mistresses, wore long hair, or, coming from foreign countries 
for instance, from Gallia comata where long hair was always 
worn, they introduced this name of comati. Tertullian speaks 
of the cinerarii (peregrince proceritatis), and describes them as 
foreigners, with slight figures, and forming part of the suite of 
a woman of the world. 1 He mentions them in connection with 
the spadones, who were ad licentiam secti, or, as S. Jerome says, 
in securam libidinem exsecti? 

Juvenal 3 has not forgotten to signalize these relations of 
Roman women with eunuchs : " Sunt, quas eunuchi imbelles 
et mollia semper Oscula delectent." 

Martial 4 denounces them, if possible, still more energetically. 
Perhaps these eunuchs wore long hair like women in order that 
they might be called comati. Let us finally remark, that in 
the Glossary cinerarius is translated by SouXo? eratpas. 5 

If this second explanation of the sixty-seventh canon is 
accepted, it can be easily imagined why it should be placed ir 
a series of canons treating of carnal sins. 

1 Tertull. Ad Uxor. lib. 2, c. 8. 

2 Hieron. Adv. Jovinian. lib. i. 47, p. 277, vol. ii. ed. Migne. 

3 Sat. vi. v. 366 sq. 4 Epigram, lib. vi. n. 67. 
* Cf. Index Latinitatis Tertull. in the ed. of Tertull. by Migne, ii. 1271. 



SYNOD OF ELVIEA. 167 

CAN. 68. De catecJmimena adultera quce filium necat. 

Catechumena, si per adulterium conceperit et prcefocaverit, 
placuit earn in fine baptizari 

If a catechumen should conceive by an adulterer, and should 
procure the death of the child, she can be baptized only at 
the end of her life. 

CAN. 69. De viris conjugatis postea in adulterium lapsis. 

Si quis forte habens uxorein semel fuerit lapsus, placuit 
eum quinquennium agere debere pcenitentiam et sic reconciliari, 
nisi necessitas infirmitatis coegerit ante tempus dari commu- 
nionem : hoc et circa foeminas observandum. 

Adultery committed once was punishable with five years 
of penance. 1 

CAN. 70. De foeminis qiice consciis maritis adulterant. 

Si cum conscientia mariti uxor fuerit mcechata, placuit nee 
in finem dandam ei communionem ; si vero earn reliquerit, 
post decem annos accipiat communionem, si earn cum sciret 
adulterant aliquo tempore in domo sua retinuit. 

If a woman should violate conjugal fidelity with her hus 
band s consent, the latter must not be admitted to communion, 
even at the end of his life. If he separated from his wife, 
after having lived with her at all since the sin was committed, 
he was to be excluded for ten years. 

CAN. 71. De stupratoribus puerorum. 

Stupratoribus puerorum nee in finem dandam esse com- 
munionem. 

Sodomites could not be admitted to communion, even on 
their deathbeds. 

CAN. 72. De viduis mceckis si eumdem postea maritum 
duxerint. 

Si qua vidua fuerit moechata et eumdem postea habuerit 
maritum, post quinquennii tempus acta legitima poenitentia, 
placuit earn communion! reconciliari : si alium duxerit relicto 
illo, nee in finem dandam esse communionem ; vel si fuerit 

1 Of. can. 47, 78. 



168 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

ille fidelis quem accepit, communionem non accipiet, nisi post 
decem annos acta legitima pcenitentia, vel si infirmitas coegerit 
velocius dari communionem. 

When a widow had sinned, and had married her accomplice, 
she was condemned to five years of penance ; if she should 
marry another man, she could never be admitted to com 
munion, even on her deathbed ; and if her husband were bap 
tized, he was subject to a penance for ten years, for having 
married a woman who, properly speaking, was no longer free. 
This canon was inserted in the Corp. jur. can} 

The following canons treat of informers and false witnesses. 

CAN. 73. De delator ibus. 

Delator si quis extiterit fidelis, et per delationem ejus aliquis 
fuerit proscriptus vel interfectus, placuit eum nee in finem 
accipere communionem ; si levior causa fuerit, intra quin 
quennium accipere poterit communionem ; si catechumenus 
fuerit, post quinquennii tempora admittetur ad baptismum. 

This canon has been inserted in the Corp. JUT. can? 

CAN. 74. Defalsis testibus. 

Falsus testis prout est crimen abstinebitur ; si tamen non 
fuerit mortale quod objecit, et probaverit quod non (other 
manuscripts have diu) tacuerit, biennii tempore abstinebitur: 
si autem non probaverit convento clero, placuit per quinquen 
nium abstineri. 

A false witness must be excluded from the communion for 
a time proportionate to the crime of which he has given false 
witness. Should the crime be one not punishable with death, 
and if the guilty one can demonstrate that he kept silence 
for a long time (diu), that is, that he did not willingly bear 
witness, he shall be condemned to two years of penance ; if 
he cannot prove this, to five years. The canon is thus ex 
plained by Mendoza, Eemi Ceillier in Migne s Dictionary, 
etc., all preferring the reading diu. Burchard 3 had previously 
read and quoted the canon with this variation, in his Col- 
lectio canonum* But Aubespine divides it into three quite 

1 C. 7, causa xxxi. q. 1. 2 C. 6, causa v. q. 6. 3 He died in 1025. 

* Lib. xvi. c. 18. Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 381. 



SYNOD OF ELVIHA. 169 

distinct parts. The first, he says, treats of false witnesses ; 
the second, of those who are too slow in denouncing a crime. 
They must be punished, but only by two years of penance, if 
they can prove that they have not (non) kept silence to the 
end. The third condemns those to five years of penance, who, 
without having borne false witness, still cannot prove what 
they affirm. 1 

We confess that none of these explanations is quite satis 
factory : the first would be the most easily admissible ; but it is 
hardly possible to reconcile it with the reading non tacuerit, 
which, however, is that of the best manuscripts. 

CAN. 75. De his qui sacer dotes ml ministros accusant nee 
probant. 

Si quis autem episcopum vel presbyterum vel diaconum 
falsis criminibus appetierit et probare non potuerit, nee in 
finem dandam ei esse communionem. 

CAN. 76. De diaconibus si ante honorem peccasse probantur. 

Si quis diaconum se permiserit ordinari et postea fuerit 
detectus in crimine mortis quod aliquando commiserit, si sponte 
fuerit confessus, placuit eum acta legitima poenitentia post 
triennium accipere communionem ; quod si alius eum de- 
texerit, post quinquennium acta pcenitentia accipere commu 
nionem laicam debere. 

If any one should succeed in being ordained deacon, and it 
should be subsequently discovered that he had before that 
committed a mortal sin : 

a. In case he was the first to make known his fault, he 
must be received into communion (as a layman) at the end 
of three years of penance. 

6. In case his sin was discovered by another, at the end of 
five years. In both cases he was for ever suspended from his 
office of deacon. 2 

CAN. 77. De laptizatis qui nondum confirmati moriuntur. 
Si quis diaconus regens plebem sine episcopo vel presbytero 
aliquos baptizaverit, episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere 

1 In Mansi, ii. 53. 2 Cf. canons 9, 10, and c. 2 of the Nicene Council. 



170 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

debebit : quod si ante de sseculo recesserint, sub fide qua quis 
credidit poterit esse Justus. 

When Christianity spread from the large towns, where it 
had been at first established, into the country, the rural 
churches at first formed only one parish with the cathedral 
church of the town. Either priests, or Uhor&piscopi, or simple 
deacons, were sent to these rural assemblies, to exercise, within 
certain limits, the ministerial power. The solemnity of con 
secrating the Eucharist, and all that had reference to penance,, 
was reserved for the bishop of the town. 

The 77th canon refers to such deacons, and it ordains : 

a. That baptism administered by the deacon ought to be 
completed, finished by the bishop s benediction (that is to say, 
by ^eipoTovia, or confirmation). 

&. That if one who had been baptized by a deacon should 
die before having received this benediction from the bishop, 
he may notwithstanding be saved, by virtue of the faith which 
he professed on receiving baptism. 

CAN. 78. De fidelibus conjugatis si cum Judcea vel gentili 
mcecJiatce (i) fuerint. 

Si quis fidelis habens uxorem cum Judsea vel gentili fuerit 
moechatus, a communione arceatur : quod si alius eum de- 
texerit, post quinquennium acta legitima poenitentia poterit 
dominicse sociari communioni. 

The 47th and 69th canons have already treated of adultery 
between Christians : the present canon speaks of a particular 
case of adultery committed with a Jewish or pagan woman, 
and decrees a penance of five years if the guilty one has not 
confessed himself. If he has made a spontaneous confession, 
the canon only gives this vague and general command, Arcea 
tur, that is, that he should be excommunicated, but it does 
not say for how long a time : it might be supposed for three 
years, according to the analogy with the 76th canon. 1 How 
ever, it would be strange that adultery with a Jewish or pagan 
woman should be punished only by three years of penance, 
while the 69th canon decrees, in a general way, five years 
punishment to every adulterer. It is still more difficult to 
1 This is the opinion of Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 388. 



SYNOD OF ELVIKA. 171 

explain why real adultery should be less severely punished in 
the 78th canon than the evidently less criminal offence of a 
widow with a man whom she afterwards marries. 1 

CAN. 79. De his qui tabulam ludunt. 

Si quis fidelis aleam, id est tabulam, luserit numis, pla- 
cuit eum abstineri; et si emendatus cessaverit, post annum 
poterit communioni reconciliari. 

The thimbles of the ancients had not any points or figures 
upon their sides (tabula), like ours, but drawings, pictures of 
idols ; and whoever threw the picture of Venus, gained all, 
as Augustus says in Suetonius : 2 guos tollebat universes, qui 
Venerem jecerat. It is on this account that the ancient Chris 
tians considered the game of thimbles to be not only immoral 
as a game of chance, but as having an essentially pagan 
character. 3 

CAN. 80. De libertis. 

Prohibendum ut liberti, quorum patroni in sseculo fuerint, 
ad clerum non promoveantur. 

He who should give a slave his freedom remained his 
patron ; he had certain rights and a certain influence over 
him. The freedman continued to be dependent upon his 
former master ; for this reason freedmen whose patrons were 
heathens could not take orders. This canon was placed in 
the Corp. jur. can. 4 

CAN. 81. Defceminarum epistolis. 

Ne fceminse suo potius absque maritorum nominibus laicis 
scribere audeant, quse (qui) fideles sunt vel literas alicujus 
pacificas ad suum solum nomen scriptas accipiant. 

If we should read qui instead of quce, as Mendoza makes it, 
on the authority of several manuscripts, our canon is easy to 
understand. It then divides itself into two parts : 

a. Women must not write in their own name to lay Chris^ 

1 Cf. 72d canon. 2 In Augusto, c. 71. 

3 Cf. the document de Aleatoribus, wrongly attributed to S. Cyprian, ed. of 
the works of this Father by the Ben. of S. Maur, Supplement, p. xviii. sq_. 

4 C. 24, dist. liv. 



172 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

tians, laicis giii fideles sunt ; they may do so only in the name 
of their husbands. 

&. They must not receive letters of friendship (pacificas) 
from any one, addressed only to themselves. Mendoza thinks 
that the canon means only private letters, and that it is for 
bidden in the interests of conjugal fidelity. 

Aubespine gives quite another sense to the word litteras : he 
supposes that the Council wishes only to forbid the wives of 
bishops giving litteras communicatorias to Christian travellers 
in their own name, and that it also forbids them to receive 
such addressed to them instead of to their husbands. 1 

If we read guce, we must attach the words guce ficldes sunt 
to fcemince, and the meaning continues on the whole the same. 

Besides these eighty-one authentic canons, some others are 
attributed to the Council of Elvira : for instance, in the Corp. 
jur. can. (c. 17, causa xxii. q. 4; also c. 21, dist. ii. de conse- 
crat., and c. 15, causa xxii. q. 5), there is evidently a mistake 
about some of these canons, which, as Mendoza and Cardinal 
d Aguirre have remarked, 2 belong to a Synodus Helibernensis or 
Hibernensis. 3 We will remark finally, that whilst Baronius 
thinks little of the Synod of Elvira, which he wrongfully sus 
pects of Novatian opinions, 4 Mendoza and Natalia Alexander 
defend it eloquently. 5 

SEC. 14. Origin of the /Schism of the Donatists, and the first 
Synods held on this account in 312 and 313. 

The schism of the Donatists occasioned several synods at 
the beginning of the fourth century. Mensurius was bishop 
of Carthage during Diocletian s persecution. He was a worthy 
and serious man, who on the one side encouraged the faithful 
to courage and energy during the persecution, but on the other 
side strongly reproved any step which could increase the 

1 Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 391 ; Aubespine, ibid. p. 55. 

2 I.e. p. 85. 

3 These additional canons are found in Mansi, ii. 19, 20. Cf. also the two 
notes. 

4 See above, p. 134. 

6 Mendoza in Mansi, I.e. ii. 76 sq., and in many places where he is explain 
ing particular canons. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. ssee. 3, vol. iv. dissert, xxi. art, 
2, p. 139 



SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 173 

irritation of the heathen. He especially blamed certain Chris 
tians of Carthage, who had denounced themselves to the heathen 
authorities as possessors of sacred books (even when this was 
not really the case), in order to obtain martyrdom by their 
refusal to give up the Holy Scriptures. Nor would he grant 
the honours of martyrdom to those who, after a licentious life, 
should court martyrdom without being morally improved. 1 
We see, by a letter of Mensurius, how he himself behaved 
during the persecution. He relates, that when they required 
the sacred books from him, he hid them, leaving in the 
church only heretical books, which were taken away by the 
persecutors. The proconsul had soon discovered this cunning ; 
but, however, did not wish to pursue Mensurius further. 2 
Many enemies of the bishop, especially Donatus Bishop of 
Casse-Mgrse in Numidia, falsely interpreted what had passed : 
they pretended that Mensurius had, in fact, delivered up the 
Holy Scriptures ; 3 that, at any rate, he had told a sinful false 
hood ; and they began to excite disturbance in the Church of 
Carthage. 4 However, these troubles did not take the form 
of a miserable schism till after the death of Mensurius. A 
deacon named Felix, being persecuted by the heathen, took 
refuge in the house of Bishop Mensurius. As the latter 
refused to give him up, he was taken to Eome, to answer in 
person for his resistance before Maxentius, who since Diocle 
tian s abdication had possessed himself of the imperial power 
in Italy and in Africa. Mensurius succeeded in obtaining an 
acquittal ; but he died on the way back to Carthage, and before 
arriving there, in 3 II. 5 Two celebrated priests of Carthage, 
Botrus and Celestius, aspired to the vacant throne, and thought 
it their interest to invite to the election and ordination of the 
future bishop only the neighbouring prelates, and not those of 
Numidia. It is doubtful whether this was quite according to 
order. Inasmuch as Numidia formed a separate ecclesiastical 

1 August. Breviculus collationis cum Donatlstls, diei iii. cap. 13, n. 25. Opp. 
vol. ix. p. 638, eel. Migne. Dupin in his ed. of Optatus of Milevis, de Schismate 
Donalist., Antwerp 1702, p. 174. 

2 August. I.e. 

3 Cf. the article de Lapsis, by Hefele, in the Freiburger Kirchenlexicon of 
Wetzer and Welte, Bd. i. S. 39. 

4 August. I.e. c. 12 and 13. 5 Op tat. de Schism. Don. i. 17. 



174 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

province, distinct from the province of proconsular Africa, of 
which Carthage was the metropolis, the bishops of Numidia had 
no right to take part in the election of a Bishop of Carthage. 
But as the metropolitan (or, according to African language, 
the primate) of Carthage was in some sort the patriarch of 
the whole Latin Church of Africa ; and as, on this account, 
Numidia was under his jurisdiction, 1 the bishops of Numidia 
might take part in the appointment of a Bishop of Carthage. 
On the other side, the Donatists were completely in the wrong, 
when subsequently they pretended that the primate of Car 
thage ought to be consecrated by that metropolitan whose rank 
was the nearest to his own (primas, or primes sedis episcopus 
or senex) ; consequently the new Bishop of Carthage ought to 
have been consecrated by Secundus Bishop of Tigisis, then 
metropolitan (Primas) of Numidia : 2 and it is with reason that 
S. Augustine replied to them in the name of the whole 
African episcopate, during a conference held at Carthage in 
411, that even the Bishop of Eome was not consecrated by the 
primate nearest to him in rank, but by the Bishop of Ostia. 3 
The two priests mentioned above found themselves deceived 
at the time of the election, which took place at Carthage : for 
the people, putting them on one side, elected Cecilian, who 
had been archdeacon under Mensurius ; and Felix Bishop of 
Aptunga, suffragan of Carthage, consecrated him immediately. 4 
The consecration was hardly ended, when some priests and 
some of the laity of Carthage resolved to unite their efforts to 
ruin the new bishop. On his departure for Eome, Mensurius 
had confided the treasures of his church to the care of some 
Christians : at the same time he had given the list of every 
thing entrusted to them into the hands of a pious woman, 
charging her, " in case he should not return, to remit this list 
to his successor." The woman fulfilled her commission ; and 
the new bishop, Cecilian, claimed the property of the church 
from those with whom it had been left. This demand irritated 

1 Cf. "below, can. 1 and 4 of the Council of Hippo in 393, and c. 7 of the 
Council ol Carthage of August 28, 397, with our observations ; besides, Wiltsch, 
Kirclil. Geographie und Statistik, Bd. i. S. 130. 

2 Cf. the observations upon the fifty-eighth canon of the Council of Elvira, ]> 
162. 

3 August. I.e. c. 16, n. 29. * Optatus, I.e. p. 17 sq. 



SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 175 

them against him : they had hoped that no one would have 
known of this deposit, and that they might divide it amongst 
themselves. 

Besides these laymen, the two priests mentioned above 
arrayed themselves against Cecilian. The soul of the opposi 
tion was a very rich lady, who had a great reputation for 
piety, named Lucilla, and who thought she was most grievously 
wronged by Cecilian. She had been in the habit, every time 
she communicated, of kissing the relics of a martyr not ac 
counted such by the Church. Cecilian, who was at that time 
a deacon, had forbidden the worship of these relics not recog 
nised by the Church, and the pharisaical pride of the woman 
could not pardon the injury. 1 

Things were in this state when Secundus Bishop of Tigisis, 
in his office of episcopus primes sedis of Numidia, sent a com 
mission to Carthage to appoint a mediator (interventor) nomi 
nally for the reconciliation of the parties. 2 But the commission 
was very partial from the beginning : they entered into no 
relation with Cecilian or his nock ; but, on the contrary, took 
up their abode with Lucilla/ and consulted with her v on the 
plan to follow for the overthrow of Cecilian. The malcon 
tents, says Optatus, then asked the Numidian bishops to come 
to Carthage to decide about the election and the consecration 
of Cecilian, and in fact Secundus of Tigisis soon appeared with 
his suffragans. They took up their abode with the avowed 
opponents of Cecilian, and refused to take part in the assem 
bly or synod which he wished to call, according to custom, to 
hear the JSTumidian bishops ; and, instead, they held a conci- 
licibulum of their own, at which seventy met, and in a private 
house in Carthage, before which they summoned Cecilian to 
appear (312). Cecilian did not attend, but sent word "that 
if they had anything against him, the accuser had only to 
appear openly and prove it." No accusation was made ; 4 and 
besides, they could bring forward nothing against Cecilian, 
except having formerly, as archdeacon, forbidden the visiting 

- * Optatus, I.e. pp. 16-18. 
8 August. JEp. 44, c. 4, n. 8, ii. 177, cd. Migne. 
8 Augustin. JSermo 46, c. 15, n. 39, v. 293, ed. Migne. 
4 Optatus, I.e. p. 18. 



176 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

of the martyrs in prison and the taking of food to them. 1 
Evidently, says Dupin, 2 Cecilian had only followed the 
counsel of S. Cyprian, in forbidding the faithful to go in 
crowds to the prisons of the martyrs, for fear of inciting the 
pagans to renewed acts of violence. Although Cecilian was 
perfectly right in this respect, it is possible that in the appli 
cation of the rule, right in itself, he may have acted with 
some harshness. This is at least what we must conclude if 
only the tenth part of the accusations raised against him by 
an anonymous Donatist have any foundation. 3 He says, for 
instance, that Cecilian would not even allow parents to visit 
their captive sons and daughters, that he had taken away the 
food from those who wish ad to take it to the martyrs, and 
had given it to the dogs, and the like. His adversaries laid 
still greater stress on the invalidity of Cecilian s consecration, 
because his consecrator, Felix of Aptunga, had been a Traditor 
(i.e. had given up the sacred books) during the persecution of 
Diocletian. No council had heretofore ordained that the 
sacraments were valid even when administered by heinous 
sinners ; therefore Cecilian answered, with a sort of condescen 
sion towards his enemies, " that if they thought that Felix 
had not rightfully ordained him, they had only themselves to 
proceed to his ordination." But the bishops of Numidia did 
doubly wrong in thus setting themselves against Felix of 
Aptunga. First, the accusation of his having given up the 
sacred books was absolutely false, as was proved by a judicial 
inquiry made subsequently, in 314. The Koman officer who 
had been charged to collect the sacred books at Aptunga 
attested the innocence of Felix ; whilst one Ingentius, who, in 
his hatred against Felix, had produced a false document to 
ruin him, confessed his guilt. 5 But apart from this circum 
stance, Secundus and his friends, who had themselves giver 
up the Holy Scriptures, as was proved in the Synod of Cirta, 

1 August. Brevic. collat. diei iii. c. 14, n. 26. Optat. I.e. p. 176, in Dupin f 
edition. 

2 I.e. p. 2. 3 Optat. I.e. p. 156, Dupin s ed. 

4 Optat. I.e. p. 18. August. Brevic. collat. diei iii. c. 16, n. 29. 

5 Gesta purgationis Felicis, ep. Apt. in Dupin s ed. of the works of Optat 
I.e. p. 162 sqq. 

6 See above, p. 129. 



SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 177 

had hardly the right to judge Felix for the same offence. 
Besides, they had at this same Synod of Cirta consecrated 
Silvanus bishop of that place, who was also convicted of 
having been a Traditor. 1 Without troubling themselves with 
all these matters, or caring for the legality of their proceeding, 
the Numidians proclaimed, in their unlawful Council, the 
deposition of Cecilian, whose consecration they said was 
invalid, and elected a friend and partisan of Lucilla s, the 
reader Ma/jorinus, to be Bishop of Carthage. Lucilla had 
bribed the ]STumidian bishops, and promised to each of them 
400 pieces of gold. 2 

This done, the unlawful Numidian Council addressed a cir 
cular letter to all the churches of Africa, in which they related 
what had passed, and required that the churches should cease 
from all ecclesiastical communion with Cecilian. It followed 
from this that, Carthage being in some sort the patriarchal 
throne of Africa, all the African provinces were implicated in 
this controversy. In almost every town two parties were 
formed ; in many cities there were even two bishops a Ceci 
lian and a Majorinian. Thus began this unhappy schism. 
As Majorinus had been put forward by others, and besides as 
he died soon after his election, the schismatics did not take 
his name, but were called Donatists, from the name of Donatus 
Bishop of Casse Nigrae, who had much more influence than 
Majorinus, and also afterwards on account of another Donatus, 
surnamed the Great, who became the successor of Majorinus 
as schismatical Bishop of Carthage. Out of Africa, Cecilian 
was everywhere considered the rightful bishop, and it was to 
him only that letters of communion (epistolce communicatorice) 
were addressed. 3 Constantine the Great, who meanwhile had 
conquered Maxentius in the famous battle at the Milvian 
Bridge, also recognised Cecilian, wrote to him, sent him a 
large sum of money to distribute among his priests, and 
added, " that he had heard that some unruly spirits fought to 
trouble the Church ; but that he had already charged the 
magistrates to restore order, and that Cecilian had only to 
apply to them for the punishment of the agitators." 4 In 

1 Optat. ed. Dupin, I.e. iii. 14, 15, 175. 2 Optat. I.e. p. 19, n. 39, and p. 173, 

3 Optat. I.e. p. 20 and p. iv. 4 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl x. 6. 

M 



178 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

another letter, addressed to the proconsul of Africa, Aniiliims, 
he exempted the clergy of the Catholic Church of Carthage, 
4t whose president was Cecilian/ from all public taxes. 1 

Soon afterwards, the opponents of Cecilian, to w T hom many 
of the laity joined themselves, remitted two letters to the pro 
consul of Africa, begging him to send them to the Emperor. 
Anulinus accordingly did so. 2 The title of the first letter, 
which S. Augustine has preserved to us, viz. libcllus Ecdesice 
Catliolicce (that is to say, of the Donatist Church) criminum 
Ccecilianif suffices to show its tenor ; the second entreated the 
Emperor, on account of the divisions among the African 
bishops, to send judges from Gaul to decide between them 
.and Cecilian. 4 This latter letter, preserved by Optatus, 5 is 
signed by Lucian, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Eidentius, ct 
cceteris episcopis partis Donati, In his note upon this passage, 
Dupin has proved by quotations from this letter, as it is 
found in S. Augustine, that the original was partis Majorini, 
which Optatus changed into Donati, according to the expres 
sion commonly used in his time. 

We see from the preceding that the Donatists deserved the 
reproach which was cast upon them, of being the first to call for 
the intervention of the civil power in a purely ecclesiastical 
case ; and the Emperor Constantine himself, who was then in 
Gaul, openly expressed his displeasure on this subject, in a 
letter which he addressed to Pope Melchiades (Miltiades). 6 
However, to restore peace to Africa, he charged three bishops 
of Gaul Maternus of Coin, Eeticius of Autun, and Marinus of 
Aries to make arrangements with the Pope and fifteen other 
Italian bishops to assemble in a synod which was held at 
Eome in 313. 

1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 7 ; Optat. p. 177 sq. 

2 The letter that Anulinus sent to the Emperor on this occasion is to be found 
in Mansi, I.e. ii. 438, and more fully in August. Ep, 88. 

3 Epist. 88. 

4 Upon this demand, see Miinchen, prov. of the Cathed. of Coin, Das erste 
Condi von Aries, in the Bonner Zeitschrift fur Philos. u. Kath. Theol. Heft 9, 
S. 88 f. 

5 Z.c, p. 22. 

6 Thia letter is found in Euseb. Hist. Ecd. x. 5. Dr. Miinchen (I.e. pp. 90, 
39) proves by this letter, and by all Constantine s conduct, that this prince had 
no intention of mixing in the inner aflairs of the Church. 



SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 179 

Synod at Rome (313). 1 

Cecilian was invited to be present at this Synod, with ten 
bishops of his obedience. His adversaries were to send an 
equal number; and at their head stood Donatus of Casse 
Niorse. The conferences began at the Lateran Palace, belong- 

o o 

ing to the Empress Fausta, on October 2, 3 13, and lasted 

three days. The first day Donatus and his friends were first of 

all to prove their accusations against Cecilian ; but they could 

produce neither witnesses nor documents : those whom Donatus 

himself had brought to witness against Cecilian, declared that 

they knew nothing against the bishop, and therefore were not 

brought forward by Donatus. On the contrary, it was proved 

that, when Cecilian was only a deacon, Donatus had excited 

divisions in Carthage ; that he had re-baptized Christians who 

had been baptized before ; and, contrary to the rules of the 

Church, had laid hands on fallen bishops to reinstate them in 

jheir offices. The second day the Donatists produced a second 

accusation against Cecilian ; but they could no more prove 

;heir assertions than on the previous day. The continuation 

)f an inquiry already begun concerning the unlawful Council 

)f Carthage of 312, which had deposed Cecilian, was inter- 

mpted. As Donatus was totally unable on the third day, as 

>n the two preceding, to produce a single witness, Cecilian was 

leclared innocent, and Donatus condemned on his own con- 

ession. ISTo judgment was pronounced on the other bishops 

)f his party. The Synod, on the contrary, declared that if they 

vould return to the unity of the Church, they might retain 

heir thrones ; that in every place where there was a Cecilian 

ind a Donatist bishop, the one who had been the longest 

ndained should remain at the head of the Church, whilst the 

*ounger should be set over another diocese. This decision of 

he Synod was proclaimed by its president the Bishop of 

tome, and communicated to the Emperor. 2 

After the close of the Synod, Donatus and Cecilian were 
>oth forbidden to return to Africa at once. Cecilian was de- 

1 See Constantine s letter quoted above. 

2 Optat. I.e. pp. 22-24 ; August. Ep. 43 ; and Breviculus collat. Carthag. die! 
i. c. 12 sc[. ; and Libell. Synod, in Mansi, ii. 436, in Hard. v. 1499. 



180 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

tained at Brescia for a time. Some time afterwards, however; 
Donatus obtained permission to go to Africa, but not to 
Carthage. But the Pope, or perhaps the Synod before closing, 
sent two bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, to Africa, to pro 
claim that that was the catholic party for which the nineteen 
bishops assembled at Eome had pronounced. We see from 
this that the mission of the two bishops was to promulgate- 
the decisions of the Synod ; we also think, with Dupin, that 
their journey, the date of which is uncertain, took place im 
mediately after the close of the Synod of Eome. The two 
bishops entered into communion with Cecilian s clergy at 
Carthage ; but the Donatists endeavoured to prevent the 
bishops from accomplishing their mission ; and some time after, 
as Donatus had returned to Carthage, Cecilian also returned to 
his flock. 1 

NQW troubles soon agitated Africa, and the Donatists again 
brought complaints of Cecilian before the Emperor. Irritated 
with their obstinacy, Constantine at first simply referred them 
to the decision of the Synod of Eome ; 2 and when they re 
plied by protesting that they had not been sufficiently listened 
to at Eome, Constantine decided, first, that a minute in 
quiry should be made as to whether Felix of Aptunga had 
really given up the Holy Scriptures (we have given above the 
result of this inquiry) ; next, that the whole controversy 
should be definitely settled by a great assembly of the bishops 
of Christendom ; and consequently he called the bishops of his 
empire together for the 1st of August 314, to the Council of 
Aries in Gaul. 

SEC. 15. Synod of Arks in Gaul (314). 3 

Cecilian and some of his friends, as well as some deputies 
of the party of the Donatists, were invited to this Council 
and the officials of the empire were charged to defray the ex 
penses of the voyage of these bishops. Constantine speciall} 

1 Optat. I.e. p. 25 and p. vi. 2 See Optat. p. 181, ed. Dupin. 

3 Euseb. Hist. Ecel. x. 5; Mansi, I.e. ii. 463-468. The best modern wor 
on the Council of Aries is the dissertation of Dr. Miinphen, in the Bonne 
Zeitschr. already mentioned, Heft 9, S. 78 ff. ; Heft 26, S. 49 if. ; Heft 2? 
S. 42 ff. 



SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL. 181 

invited several bishops, amongst others the Bishop of Syra 
cuse. 1 According to some traditions, there were no fewer 
than 600 bishops assembled at Aries. 2 Baronius, relying on 
a false reading in S. Augustine, fixes the number at 200. 
Dupin thought there were only thirty-three bishops at Aries, 
because that is the number indicated by the title of the letter 
of the Synod addressed to Pope Silvester/ and by the list 
of persons 4 which is found in several MSS. Notwithstanding 
this comparatively small number, we may say that all the 
provinces of Constantine s empire were represented at the 
Council. Besides these thirty-three bishops, the list of persons 
also mentions a considerable number of priests and deacons, 
of whom some accompanied their bishops, and others repre 
sented their absent bishops as their proxies. Thus Pope Sil 
vester was represented by two priests, Claudianus and Vitus, 
two deacons, Eugenius and Cyriacus. 5 Marinus of Aries, one 
of the three judges (judices ex G-allici), who had been appointed 
beforehand by the Emperor, appears to have presided over the 
assembly : at least his name is found first in the letter of the 
Synod. 6 With Marinus the letter mentions Agroecius of Trier, 
Theodore of Aquileia, Proterius of Capua, Vocius of Lyons, 
Cecilian of Carthage, Eeticius of Autun (one of the earlier 
judices ex Gallia], Ambitausus (Imbetausius) of Pteims, Merokles 
of Milan, Adelfius of London, Maternus of Coin, Liberius of 
Emerita in Spain, and others ; the last named having already 
been present at the Synod of Elvira. 

It is seen that a great part of Western Christendom was 
represented at Aries by some bishops ; and the Emperor Con- 
stantine could truly say : " I have assembled a great number 

1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 5, p. 391, ed. Mogunt. ; Mansi, ii. 463 sq. ; Hard. 
i. 259 sq. ; and Optat. I.e. 181 sq. ed. Dupin. 

2 Mansi, ii. 469, not. a, et p. 473, not. z sq. 

3 In Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 261. 

4 In Mansi, ii. 476 ; Hard. i. 266. It must not be forgotten that tins list 
does not quite agree with the inscription of the letter to the Pope, and that 
among the thirty-three names of the synodieal letter some are mentioned in the 
list of persons only as those of priests who were representatives of the bishops. 
Cf. on this list, which Quesnel has wrongly considered as a copy of the super 
scription of the synodieal letter, the Ballerini, in their edition ot the works of 
Leo the Great, ii. 1018 sq., e 4 ; ibid. 851. 

6 Cf. the list of persona. In Mansi, Lc. 4C9 ; Hard. i. 261. 



182 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

of bishops from different and almost innumerable parts of the 
empire." "We may look 011 the assembly at Aries as a general 
council of the West (or of the Roman patriarchate). 2 It can 
not, however, pass for an oecumenical council, for this reason, 
that the other patriarchs did not take any part in it, and 
indeed were not invited to it ; and those of the East espe 
cially, according to S. Augustine, 3 ignored almost entirely the 
Donatist controversy. But has not S. Augustine himself 
declared this Council to be oecumenical ? In order to answer 
this question in the affirmative, an appeal has been made to 
the second book of his treatise, De Baptismo contra Dona- 
tistas* where he says : " The question relating to re-baptism 
was decided against Cyprian, in a full council of the whole 
Church" (plenarium concilium, concilium -universce Ucclesice). 5 
But it is doubtful whether S. Augustine meant by that the 
Council of Aries, or whether he did not rather refer to that of 
Nicsea, according to Pagi s view of the case. 6 It cannot, how 
ever be denied that S. Augustine, in his forty-third letter 
(vii. ISTo. 19), in speaking of the Council of Aries, calls it 
plenarium Ecclesice universce concilium 1 ! Only it must not be 
forgotten that the expression concilium plenarium, or universale, 
is often employed in speaking of a national council ; 8 and 
that in the passage quoted S. Augustine refers to the Western 
Church (Ecclesia universa occidentalis), and not to the universal 
Church (universalis) in the fullest sense. 

The deliberations of the Council of Aries were opened on 
the 1st of August 314. Cecilian and his accusers were pre 
sent ; but these were no more able than before to prove then 
accusations. "We unfortunately have not in full the acts o: 
the Council ; but the synodical letter already quoted inform, 
us that the accusers of Cecilian were aut damnati aut repulsi 
From this information we infer that Cecilian was acquitted 
and this we know to have been the actual result of the Donatis 

1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 5. 

2 Cf. Pagi, Grit, ad aim. 314, n. 21. 

3 Contra Crescon. lib. iv. c. 25 ; Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 314, n. 17. 

4 Cap. 9, n. 14. 5 Opera, viii. 135, ed. Migne. 
6 Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 314, n. 18. 7 Opera, ii. 169, ed. Migne. 

8 Cf. Pagi, I.e. n. 19 ; and Hefele, " Das Concil von Sardika," in the Tiiling< 
Quartalsch. 1852, S. 406. Cf. also previously, pp. 3, 4. 



SYNOD OF AELES IX GAUL. 18 



o 



controversy. The Council, in its letter to the Pope, says, 
" that it would have greatly desired that the Pope (Silvester) 
had been able to assist in person at the sessions, and that the 
judgment given against Cecilian s accusers would in that case 
certainly have been more severe." l The Council probably 
alluded to the favourable conditions that it had accorded to 
the Donatist bishops and priests, in case they should be recon 
ciled to the Church. 

The letter of the Council contains no other information 
relating to the affairs of the Donatists. At the time of the 

o 

religious conference granted to the Donatists in 411, a letter 
of the African bishops 2 was read, in which they said, that, 
" dating from the commencement of the schism (ab ipsius 
separations exordia), consent had been given that every Dona 
tist bishop who should become reconciled to the Church should 
alternately exercise the episcopal jurisdiction with the Catholic 
bishop : that if either of the two died, the survivor should 
be his sole successor ; but in the case in which a church did not 
wish to have two bishops, both were to resign, and a new one 
was to be elected." From these words, ab ipsius separationis 
cxordio, Tillemont 3 concluded that it is to the Synod of Aries 
that this decision should be referred ; for, as we have already 
seen, 4 other proposals of reconciliation were made at Rome. 
It is not known whether the Synod of Aries decided anything 
else in the matter of the Donatists. But it is evident that 
two, perhaps three, of its twenty-two canons N"os. 13, 14, 
and 8), refer to the schism of the African Church, which we 
shall show in examining them one by one. 

The Synod of Aries was not satisfied, as their synodal letter 
tells us, merely to examine and judge the business of the 
Donatists : it wished to lend its assistance in other points 
relating to the necessities of the Church, especially to solve 
the paschal controversy, the question of the baptism of heretics, 

1 Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 262. 

2 It is the 128th epistle among those of S. Augustine, ii. 489, ed. Migne. 
Cf. Brev. collat. diei i. c. 5, p. 615, t. ix. ed. Migne ; et Optat. 250, ed. 
Dupin. 

3 Memoires, t. vi. in the Diss. sur Us Donatistes, art. xxi. p. 21, ed. Brux. 
1732. 

4 Above, p. 179. 



184 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and to promulgate various rules for discipline. Convinced 
that it acted under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it used 
the formula, Placuit ergo, prcesente Spiritu sancto et angelis ejus ; 
and begged the Pope, who had the government of the larger 
diocese (majoris dioeceseos gubernacula) under his control, to pro 
mulgate its decrees universally. 1 The Synod also sent him the 
complete collection of its twenty-two canons, while in the 
letter previously quoted it had given only a short extract from 
them : consequently it may be maintained, with the brothers 
Ballerini, 2 that the Synod addressed two letters to the Pope, 
of which the first, commencing with the enumeration of the 
bishops present, dwelt chiefly on the affairs of the Donatists, 
and gave but a short sketch of the other decisions ; while the 
second included literally and exclusively all the decrees, and 
addressed itself to the Pope only in the words of introduction, 
and in the first canon. The Benedictines of S. Maur have 
published the best text of this second synodical letter, and of 
the canons of the Council of Aries, in the first volume of their 
Collectio conciliorum Gallice of 1789, of which the sequel un 
fortunately has not appeared. 3 We shall adopt this text : 

Domino sanctissimo fratri Silvestro Marinus vel coetus epis- 
coporum qui adunati fuerunt in oppido Arelatensi. Quid de- 
crevimus communi consilio caritati tuas significamus, ut onmes 
sciant quid in futurum observare debeant. 

CAN. 1. Ut lino die, et tempore Pasclia celcbrctur. 

Primo loco de observatione Paschaa Domini, ut uno die et 
uno tempore per omnem orbem a nobis observetur et juxta 
consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas. 

By this canon the Council of Aries wished to make the 
Roman computation of time with regard to Easter the rule 
everywhere, and consequently to abolish that of Alexandria, 
and all others that might differ from it, taking for granted that 
the bishops of the Council knew the difference that existed 

1 In Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 261 sq. 

2 In their edition of the works of Leo the Great, ii. 1019. 

3 Reprinted in Bruns BiUlotheca ecclesiastica, vol. i. P. ii. p. 107. The pas 
sage, as given less accurately in the ancient collections of councils, is found in 
Mansi, ii. 471 sq., Hard. i. 263 sq. 



SYXOD OF AELES IN GAUL. 185 

between these and the Roman computation. We will not 
here give the details relating to the paschal controversy, but 
further on in the history of the Council of Nicsea, so as the 
better to grasp the whole meaning. 1 

CAN. 2. Ut uli qidsgue ordinatur ibi permaneat. 

DQ his qui in quibuscumque locis ordinati fuerint ministri, 
in ipsis locis perseverent. 

The twenty-first canon contains the same decision, with 
this difference, that the former speaks only of the inferior 
ministers of the Church (ministri), while the latter speaks of 
the priests and deacons ; and both express the view of the 
ancient Church, in accordance with which an ecclesiastic at 
tached to one church ought not to change to another. We 
find the same prohibition even in the apostolic canons (TSTos. 
13 and 14, or 14 and 15); and in the fifteenth canon of 
Mcaea. It is questioned whether this canon of Aries forbids 
only passing from one diocese to another, or if it forbade 
moving from one church to another in the same diocese. Dr. 
Munchen understood the canon in the latter sense, founding 
his opinion on the seventy-seventh canon of the Synod of 
Elvira, 2 which shows that each church in a diocese had its 
own minister. 3 Of course the prohibition as to a change of 
churches in the same diocese, necessarily applies to moving 
from one diocese to another. 

CAN. 3. Ut qui in pace arma prqfitiunt cxcommunicentur. 

De his qui arma projiciunt in pace, placuit abstineri eos a 
communione. 

This canon has been interpreted in no less than four ways. 
Ivo of Chartres read, instead of in pace, in prcelio ; and an 
ancient manuscript, which was compared by Surius, read in 
fiello. In this case the sense would be : " He who throws 
down his arms in war is excommunicated." Sirmond tried a 
second explanation, taking the view that arma projicere is not 

1 Cf. the diss. of Hefele, Osterfeierstreit (Controversy on the subject of the 
Easter Feast), in the Freiburger Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii. S. 871 ff. 

2 In his diss. already quoted, in the Banner Zeitschrift, Heft 26, S. 61 ff. 

3 Cf. above, p. 170. 



186 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

synonymous with arma aljicere, and signifies arma in alium 
conjicere. 1 Thus, according to him, the canon forbids the use 
of arms except in case of war. Dr. Miinchen has developed 
this explanation, by applying the sentence arma projicere in 
pace to the fights of the gladiators, and he has considered this 
canon as a prohibition of these games. Constantine the Great, 
he says, forbade on the 1st October 325 the games of the 
gladiators in nearly the same terms : Cruenta spectacula in otio 
civili et domestica qideto non placent ; quapropter omnino gladi- 
atores esse proliibemus. Besides these, adds Mtinchen, the two 
following canons are directed against the spectacula which 
were so odious to the early Christians ; and this connection 
also justifies the opinion that canon 3 refers to the spectacula > 
that is to say, to the fights of the gladiators. 2 Aubespine has 
tried a fourth explanation. Many Christians, says he, under 
the pagan emperors, had religious scruples with regard to 
military service, and positively refused to take arms, or else 
deserted. The Synod, in considering the changes introduced by 
Constantine, set forth the obligation that Christians have to 
serve in war, and that because the Church is at peace (in pace) 
under a prince friendly to Christians. 3 This explanation has 
been adopted, amongst others, by Eemi Ceillier, 4 by Herbst, 5 in 
the Didionnaire dcs concilcs of Abbe Migne, 6 and in Abbe 
Guette s recently published Histoire de I eglisc de France? We, 
however, prefer Dr. Miinchen s view of the matter. 

CAN. 4. lit aurigce dum agitant excommiinicentur. 

De agitatoribus qui fideles sunt, placuit eos quamdiu agi 
tant a communione separari. 

These agitators are the jockeys and grooms of the courses, 
identical with the aurigce of the sixty-second canon of the 
Council of Elvira. In the same way that the preceding 
canon interdicted the games of the gladiators, which were 
celebrated in the amphitheatre, so this prohibits the racing of 
horses and chariots, which took place in the circus. 

1 Mansi, ii. 481 sq_. 2 Miinchen, in the diss. quoted above. 

3 See the notes of Aubespine, in Mansi, ii. 492. 

4 Histoire des auteurs sacres, iii. 705. 5 Ttib. Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 666. 
6 T. i. p. 199. Paris 1S47. 1 T. i. p. 64. Paris 1847. 



SYNOD OF AELES IN GAUL. 187 

CAN. 5. Ut tlieatrici quamdiu agunt excommunicentur. 

De theatriciSj et ipsos placuit quamdiu agunt a communione 
separari. 

This canon excommunicates those who are employed in the 
theatres. 1 

CAN. 6. Ut in infirmitate conversi manus impositionem 
accipiant. 

De his qui in infirmitate credere volunt, placuit iis debere 
manum imponi. 

The thirty-ninth canon of Elvira expresses itself in the 
same manner ; and in commenting 2 upon it, we have said that 
the words manum imponi were understood by one party as a 
simple ceremony of admission to the order of catechumens 
without baptism; by others, especially by Dr. Mlinchen, as 
expressing the administration of confirmation. 

CAN. 7. De ficlelibus qui prcesides fiunt vel rem pullicam 
agere volunt. 

De preesidibus qui fideles ad prsesidatum prosilinnt, placuit 
ut cum promoti fuerint literas accipiant ecclesiasticas com- 
municatorias, ita tamen ut in quibuscumque locis gesserint, 
ab episcopo ejusdem loci cura illis agatur, et cum coeperint 
contra disciplinam agere, turn demum a communione exclu- 
dantur. Similiter et de his qui rempublicam agere volunt. 

Like the preceding one, this canon repeats a similar statute 
of the Synod of Elvira. The fifty-sixth canon of Elvira had 
decreed that a Christian invested with a public office should 
abstain from appearing in church during the term of these 
duties, because these necessarily brought him into contact 
with paganism. 3 But since the Council of Elvira an essential 
change had taken place. Constantino had himself gone over 
to Christianity ; the Church had obtained full liberty ; and if 
even before this time Christians had often been invested with 
public offices, 4 this would henceforth be much more frequently 

1 On this hatred of tlie first Christians for the stage and gaming, cf. Tub. 
Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 396 ff. 

2 Above, p. 153 f. 3 See above, p. 161. 
4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. viii. 1. 



188 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the case. It was necessary that, under a Christian emperor 
and altered circumstances, the ancient rigour should be re 
laxed, and it is for this reason that the canon of Aries modi 
fied the decree of Elvira. If a Christian, it says, becomes 
prceses, that is to say, governor, he is not, as heretofore, obliged 
to absent himself from church; on the contrary, letters of 
recommendation will be given him to the bishop of the 
country which is entrusted to his care (the governors were 
sent out of their native country, that they might rule more 
impartially). The bishop was bound to extend his care over 
him, that is to say, to watch over him, assist him with his 
advice, that he might commit no injustice in an office which 
included the jus gladii. If he did not listen to the warnings 
of the bishop, if he really violated Christian discipline, then 
only was he to be excluded from the Church. The same line 
of conduct was adhered to in regard of the municipal authori 
ties as towards the imperial officers. 1 Baronius has erroneously 
interpreted this canon, in making it exclude heretics and 
schismatics from holding public offices. 2 

CAN. 8. De laptismo eorum qui ab Jiceresi convertuntur. 

De Afris quod propria lege sua utuntur ut rebaptizent, 
placuit ut si ad Ecclesiam aliquis de hgsresi venerit, interro- 
gent eum symbolum ; et si perviderint eum in Patre et Filio 
et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur 
ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non re- 
sponderit hanc Trinitatem, baptizetur. 

We have already seen 3 that several African synods, held 
under Agrippinus and Cyprian, ordered that whoever had been 
baptized by a heretic, was to be re-baptized on re-entering the 
Church. The Council of Aries abolished this law (lex) of the 
Africans, and decreed that one who had received baptism 
from heretics in the name of the holy Trinity was not to be 

1 Cf. Dr. Miinchen, I.e. Heft 27, S. 42 ; Migne, Diet, des Condi, i. 193. 

2 Baron, ad an. 314, n. 57. The opinion of Baronius (ibid. No. 53), that 
Constantine was present at the Council of Aries, is not defensible. He thinks 
this conclusion can be drawn from a text of Eusebius ( Vita Const, i. 44) ; but 
this passage speaks only in general terms of the presence of the Emperor at the 
Council, and evidently refers to the Council of Nicsea. 

3 Pp. 86, 98 ff. 



SYXOD OF ARLES IN GAUL. 189 

again baptized, but simply to receive the imposition of hands, 
lit accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Thus, as we have already said, 1 
the imposition of hands on those converted was ad poenitentiam 
and ad confirmationcm. The Council of Aries promulgated in 
this eighth canon the rule that has always been in force, and 
is still preserved in our time, with regard to baptism con 
ferred by heretics : it was adopted and renewed by the nine 
teenth canon of the (Ecumenical Council of ISTicsea. 2 

In several MSS. Arianis is read instead of Afris ; 3 but it is 
known that at the time of the first Synod of Aries the sect of 
the Arians did not yet exist. Binius has thought, and perhaps 
with some reason, that this canon alluded to the Donatists, 
and was intended to refute their opinion on the ordination of 
Cecilian by Felix of Aptunga, by laying down this general 
principle : " That a sacrament is valid, even when it has been 
conferred by an unworthy minister." There is, however, no 
trace of an allusion to the Donatists : it is the thirteenth canon 
which clearly settles the particular case of the Donatists, as 
to whether a Traditor, one who has delivered up the Holy 
Scriptures, can validly ordain. 



CAN. 9. Ut q_ui confessorum litter as afferent, alias 
cipiant. 

De his qui confessorum literas afferunt, placuit ut sublatis 
iis literis alias accipiant communicatorias. 

This canon is a repetition of the twenty-fifth canon of the 
Synod of Elvira. 4 

CAN. 10. Ut is cujus uxor adulteraverit aliam ilia vivente non 
accipiat. 

De his qui conjuges suas in adulterio deprehendunt, et 
iidem sunt adolescentes fideles et prohibentur nubere, placuit 
ut in quantum possit consilium iis detur, ne viventibus uxori- 
bus suis licet adulteris alias accipiant. 

In reference to the ninth canon of Elvira, the Synod of 

1 P. 113. 

2 Cf. also the pretended seventh canon of the second (Ecumenical Council of 
Constantinople in 381. 

3 Mansi, ii. 472. 4 Cf. above, p. 146. 



190 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Aries has in view simply the case of a man putting away his 
adulterous wife ; whilst, on the contrary, the Council of Elvira 
refers to the case of a woman leaving her adulterous husband. 
In both cases the two Councils alike depart from the existing 
civil law, 1 by refusing to the innocent party the right of marry 
ing again. But there is the noteworthy difference, that the 
right of re-marrying is forbidden to the woman, under penalty 
of permanent excommunication (can. 9 of Elvira) ; while the 
man is only strongly advised (in quantum possit consilium Us 
ddur) not to marry again. Even in this case marriage is not 
allowed, as is shown by the expression et proliibentur nulcrc. 
This Synod will not allow that which has been forbidden, but 
only abstains from imposing ecclesiastical penance. Why is it 
more considerate to the man ? Undoubtedly because the 
existing civil law gave greater liberty to the husband than to 
the wife, and did not regard the connection of a married man 
with an unmarried woman as adultery. 2 

It may be observed that Petavius, 3 instead of et proliibentur 
mibere, prefers to read et non prohibentur nubere, which would 
mean that, while they were not prohibited from marrying, they 
should be strongly recommended not to do so. 

CAN. 1 1 . De puettis qiice gentilibus junguntur. 

De puellis fidelibus quas gentilibus junguntur placuit, ut 
aliquaiito tempore a communione separentur. 

This canon is evidently related to the fifteenth canon of 
Elvira, with, however, this difference, that the canon of Elvira 
chiefly relates to the parents, while that of Aries rather con 
cerns daughters. This, too, enforces a penalty, which the 
other does not. 4 

CAN. 12. Ut clerici fwneratores excommunicentur. 
De ministris qui foenerant, placuit eos juxta formam divini- 
tus datam a communione abstineri. 

1 Fr. q. D. de Divert. (24. 2); Miinchen, I.e. S. 58. 

2 Const, c. i. ad leg. Tul. (9. 9) ; Miinchen, I.e. S. 58. It was not until the 
year 449 that the position of man and wife was put on the same footing in this 
respect. 

3 In his ed. of Epiphanius, Hceres. 59, c. 3, t. ii. app. p. 255. 

4 Cf. Miinchen, I.e. S. 63, 



SYNOD OF AELES IN GAUL. 191 

This canon is almost literally identical with the first part of 
the twentieth canon of Elvira. 1 

CAN. 13. DC iis giii Scripturas sacras, vasa dominica, vel 
nomina fratrum tradidisse dicuntur. 

DQ his qui Scripturas sanctas tradidisse dicuntur vel vasa 
dominica vel nomina fratrum suoruni, placuit no"bis ut qui- 
cumque eorum ex actis publicis fuerit detectus, non verbis 
nudis, ab ordine cleri amoveatur; nam si iidem aliquos ordi- 
nasse fuerint deprehensi, et hi quos ordinaverunt rationales 
subsistont, non illis obsit oidinatio. Et quoniam multi sunt 
qui contra ecclesiasticam regulam pugnare videntur et per 
testes redemptos putant se ad accusationem admitti debere, 
omnino non admittantur, nisi, ut supra diximus, actis publicis 
docuerint. 

The Emperor Diocletian had ordered, by his first edict for 
persecution in 303, first, that all the churches were to be 
destroyed ; secondly, that all sacred books were to be burnt ; 
thirdly, that Christians were to be deprived of all rights and 
all honours ; and that when they were slaves, they were to be 
declared incapable of acquiring liberty. 2 Consequently Chris 
tians were everywhere required to give up the holy books to 
be burnt, and the sacred vases to be confiscated by the trea 
sury (ad fiscum). This canon mentions these two demands, 
and, besides these, the traditio nominum. It may be that, 
.according to the first edict, some Christians, and especially the 
bishops, were required to remit the lists of the faithful be 
longing to their dioceses, in order to subject them to the de 
cree which deprived them of all rights and honour. However, 
Dr. Mtinchen 3 thinks that the traditio nominum was first in 
troduced in consequence of Diocletian s second edict. This 
edict ordered that all ecclesiastics should be imprisoned, and 
compelled to sacrifice. Many tried to escape the danger by 
flight; but it also happened that many were betrayed, and 
their names (nomina fratrum) given up to the heathen. The 
thirteenth canon orders the deposition of these Traditores, if 

1 Cf. Miinchen, I.e. S. 65. 

2 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. viii. 2 ; Lactant. de Mortibus iiersec. c. . 

9 1 " S 70 

<** ^/ O. t v 



192 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

they are ecclesiastics. But this penalty was only to be in 
flicted in case the offence of traditio was proved, not merely 
by private denunciations (verlis mcdis), but by the public 
laws, by writings signed by officers of justice (ex actis pullicis), 
which the Eoman officers had to draw up in executing the 
Emperor s edict. 

The Synod occupied itself with this question : " What 
must be done if a traditor bishop has ordained clergy ? " 
This was precisely the principal question in the contro 
versy with the Donatists ; and the Synod decided " that the 
ordination should be valid, that is, that whoever should be 
ordained by such a bishop should not suffer from it" (non 
illis dbsit ordinatio). This part of the passage is very plain, 
and clearly indicates the solution given by the Council ; but 
the preceding words, et hi, qiios ordinaverunt, rationales sitb- 
sistunt, are difficult to explain. They may very well mean, 
" If those who have been ordained by them are worthy, and fit 
to receive holy orders ; " but we read in a certain number of 
MSS., et de his, qiios ordinaverint, ratio siibsistit, that is to say, 
" If those are in question who have been ordained by them." 

This canon has another conclusion which touches the Dona- 
tist controversy ; namely : " Accusers who, contrary to all the 
Church s rules, procured paid witnesses to prove their accusa 
tions, as the adversaries of Felix of Aptunga have done, ought 
not at all to be heard if they cannot prove their complaints by 
the public acts." 

CAN. 14. Ut gui falso accusant fratres suos usque ad exitum 
excommunicentur. 

De his qui falso accusant fratres suos, placuit eos usque ad 
exitum non communicare. 

This canon is the sequel to the preceding : " If it is proved 
that any one has made a positively false and unwarrantable 
accusation against another (as a traditor), such a person will 
be excommunicated to the end of his life." This canon is 
worded in so general a manner, that it not only embraces the 
false denunciations on the particular case of the traditio, but 
all false denunciations in general, as the seventy-fifth canon of 
the Synod of Elvira had already done. 



SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL. 193 

CAN. 15. Ut diacones non offerant. 

De diaconibus quos cognovimus multis locis offerre, placuit 
minime fieri debere. 

During tlie persecution of Diocletian, a certain number of 
deacons seem to have assumed to themselves the right of offer 
ing the holy sacrifice, especially when there was no bishop or 
priest at hand. The Synod of Aries prohibited this. It will be 
seen that in this canon we translate offerre as " to offer the 
holy sacrifice/ in the same sense as this word is used in the 
nineteenth canon. Binterim 1 gives another interpretation. 
By offerre he understands the administration of the Eucharist 
to the faithful ; and he explains the canon in this sense : " The 
deacons ought not to administer the communion to the faith 
ful in various places, but only in the churches which are 
assigned to them." We must allow that offerre has sometimes 
this meaning ; for example, in S. Cyprian, de Lapsis : Solem- 
nibus adimplctis calicem diaconus offerre prcesentibus ccepit ; but, 

a. It is difficult to suppose that the Synod of Aries should 
have employed the expression offerre in two senses so essen 
tially different in the fifteenth canon, where it would mean to 
administer the Eucharist, and in the nineteenth canon, where 
it would mean to offer the holy sacrifice without having in 
either pointed out this difference more clearly. 

&. The Synod evidently wished to put an end to a serious 
abuse,, as it says, Minime fieri debere. Now it could not have 
been a very grave offence on the part of the deacons, if, in 
consequence -of the want of clergy, they had administered the 
communion in several places : after all, they would only have 
done what they performed ex offido in their own churches. 2 

CAN. 16. Ut libi giiisque fuit excommunicatus, ibi commu- 
monem conseqiiatur. 

De his qui pro delicto suo a communione separantur, 
placuit ut in quibuscumque locis fuerint exclusi in iisdem 
communionem consequantur. 

The fifty-third canon of the Synod of Elvira had already 

1 Memoralilta, t. i. P. i. p. 860. 

2 Cf. our observations on tlie eighteenth canon of Nicsea, and the discussion 
of Dr. Miinchen, I.e. p. 76. 



194 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

given the same order. This canon should be compared with 
the fifth canon of the Synod of Mesea, the second and sixth 
of Antioch (in 341), and with the sixteenth of Sardica. 

CAN. 17. Ut nullus episcopus alium conculcct episcopum. 

Ut nullus episcopus alium episcopum inculcet. 

A bishop could in many ways inconvenience, molest (in- 
culcare) a colleague ; especially 

a. If he allowed himself to exercise various episcopal func 
tions in any diocese other than his own ; for example, to 
ordain clergy, which the Synod of Antioch forbade, in 341, 
by its thirteenth canon. 

I. If he stayed a long time in a strange town, if he 
preached there, and so threw into the shade the bishop of the 
place, who might be less able, less learned than himself, for 
the sake of obtaining the other s see ; which the eleventh 
canon (fourteenth in Latin) of Sardica also forbids. 

CAN. 18. De diaconibus urlicis lit sine conscientia presbyte- 
rorum niliil agant. 

De diaconibus urbicis ut non sibi tantum praesumant, sed 
honorem presbyteris reservent, ut sine conscientia ipsorum 
nihil tale faciant. 

The canon does not tell us in what these usurpations of 
the town 1 deacons consisted (in opposition to the deacons 
of the country churches, who, being farther from the bishop, 
had less influence). The words Jwnorem presbyteris reservcnt 
seem to imply that the Council of Aries referred to the 
deacons who, according to the evidence of the Council of 
Mceea, forgot their inferiority to the priests, and took rank 
and place amongst them, which the Synod of Mcaea 2 also for 
bade. The Synod of Laodicsea also found it necessary to 
order deacons to remain standing in the presence of priests, 
unless invited to sit down. The last words of our canon 

1 The deacons of the city of Eome were the particular invaders, as Jerome 
testifies (Epist. 85, ad Evagrium). Cf. Van Espen, Commentarius in canones et 
decreta, etc. (Colon. 1755), p. 101, in the scholia on the eighteenth canon ol 
Ificsea. 



SYNOD OF ABLES IN GAUL. 195 

indicate that here also the allusion is to the functions that 
deacons were generally authorized to exercise in virtue of 
their charge, such as baptizing and preaching, but which they 
were not to discharge unless with the consent of the priests 
who were set over them. 

CAN. 19. Ut percgrinis episcopis locus sacrificandi detur. 

De episcopis peregrinis qui in urbem solent venire, placuit 
iis locum dare ut offerant. 

The seventeenth canon having forbidden bishops to exercise 
episcopal functions in a strange diocese, the nineteenth canon 
declares that the celebration of the holy sacrifice is not com 
prised in this prohibition, and consequently that a bishop 
should be allowed to offer the holy sacrifice in a strange 
diocese, or, as we should say, should be permitted to say 
Mass. 

CAN. 20. Ut sine tribus episcopis mdlus episcopus ordinetur. 

De his qui usurpant sibi quod soli debeant episcopos 
ordinare, placuit ut nullus hoc sibi prsesumat nisi assumptis 
secum aliis septem episcopis. Si tamen non potuerit septem, 
infra tres non audeat ordinare. 

The Synod of Mcsea, canon 4 ; made the same regulation, 
that all bishops should not singly ordain another bishop, and 
orders that there be at least three bishops for this purpose. 1 

"i** 

CAN. 21. Ut presbyteri aut diacones qui ad alia loca se 
transferunt dcponantur. 

De presbyteris aut diaconibus qui solent dimittere loca 
3ua in quibus ordinati stint et ad alia loca se transferunt, 
placuit ut iis locis ministrent quibus praefixi sunt. Quod si 
?elictis locis suis ad alium se locum transferre voluerint, de- 
oonantur. 

Cf. the second canon, above, p. 185. 

CAN. 22. De apostatis qui in infirmitate communionem 

pdunt. 
De his qui apostatant et nunquam se ad ecclesiam reprse- 

1 See, farther on, our remarks on the fourth canon of Niczea. 



196 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

sentant, ne quidem poenitentiam agere quoerunt, et postea in- 
firmitate accepti petunt communionem, placuit iis non dandam 
communionem nisi revaluerint et egerint dignos fructus poeni- 
tentice. 

The Council of Mcsea, in its thirteenth canon, softened this 
order, and allowed the holy communion to be administered to 
all sinners at the point of death who should desire it. 

Besides these twenty -two canons of the first Synod of 
Aries, which are certainly genuine, Mansi found six more in 
a MS. at Lucca. He thought, however, that these last must 
have been decreed by another Council of Aries. They are 
the following : 

-" CAN. 1 (24). 1 

Placuit ut quantum potest inhibeatur viro, ne dimissa 
uxore vivente liceat ut aliam ducat super earn : quicuinque 
autem fecerit alienus erit a catholica communione. 

CAN. 2 (25). 

Placuit ut mulierem corruptam clericus non ducat uxorem, 
vel is, qui laicus mulierem corruptam duxerit, non admittatur 
ad clerum. 

CAN. 3 (26). 

De aliena ecclesia clericum ordinare alibi nullus episcopus 
usurpet ; quod si fecerit, sciat se esse judicandum cum inter 
fratres de hoc fuerit appetitus. 

CAN. 4 (27). 

Abstentum clericum alterius ecclesise alia non admittat ; 
sed pacem in ecclesia inter fratres simplicem tenere cognoscat. 

CAN. 5 (28). 

Yenientem de Donatistis vel de Montensibus per manus 
impositionis suscipiantur, ex eo quod contra ecclesiasticum 
ordinem baptizare videntur. 

1 This MS. of Lucca divides the twenty-two genuine canons of Aries int( 
twenty-three, and consequently counts the first of the spurious canons as tin 
twenty-fourth. 



SYNOD OF ARLES IN GAUL. 197 

CAN. 6 (29). 

Prasterea, quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, sua- 
demus fratribus ut sacerdotes et levitse cum uxoribus suis 
non coeant, quia ministerio quotidiano occupantur. Quicum- 
que contra hanc constitutionem fecerit, a clericatus honore 
deponatur. 

If we consider, again, the occasion of this Synod namely, 
the schism of the Donatists we see that as soon as the 
Synod had pronounced its sentence upon them, they appealed 
anew to the Emperor, while the Catholic bishops asked per 
mission of him to return to their homes. Constantino there 
upon wrote a - beautiful and touching letter to the bishops, 
thanking God for His goodness to him, and the bishops for 
the equitable and conciliatory judgment that they had pro 
nounced. He complained of the perverseness, the pride, and 
obstinacy of the Donatists, who would not have peace, but ap 
pealed to him from the judgment of the Church, when the sen- 
:ence of the priests ought to be regarded as that of the Lord 
Eimself (sacerdotum juclicium ita clebct licibcri, ac si ipse Domi- 
lus residens judicct). " What audacity, what madness, what 
oily ! " he exclaims ; " they have appealed from it like 
leathens." At the end of his letter he prays the bishops, 
fter Christ s example, to have yet a little patience, and to stay 
ome time longer at Aries, so as to try and reclaim these mis- 
;uided men. If this last attempt failed, they might return to 
heir dioceses ; and he prayed them to remember him, that 
he Saviour might have mercy upon him. He said that he 
.ad ordered the officers of the empire to send the refractory 
:om Aries, and from Africa as well, to his court, where great 
erity 1 awaited them. 

These threats caused a great number of Donatists to return 
) the Church ; others persevered in their obstinacy, 2 and, 
^cording to Constantino s order, were brought to the imperial 
)urt. From that time there was no longer any occasion for 
ie Catholic bishops to remain at Aries, and in all probabi- 
fcy they returned to their dioceses. Arrived at court, the 
onatists again prayed the Emperor to judge their cause him- 

1 In Hard. i. 268 ; Mansi, ii. 477 ; et Optatus Milev. 184, ed. Dupin. 

2 Cf. August. Eplst. 88, n. 3. 



198 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

self. Constantino at first refused, but, for reasons with which 
we are not acquainted/ ended by consenting to their demand. 
He summoned Cecilian, the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, as 
well as his Donatist adversaries, to appear before him at Rome, 
where he was staying, in August 315. Ingentius, the false 
accuser of Felix of Aptunga, was to be there 2 to prove to the 
Donatists that they had improperly called in question the 
consecration of Cecilian; but Ceciliar^ for some unknown 
reason, did not appear. S. Augustine himself did not know 
why ; 3 and the Donatists profited by this circumstance, and 
urged the Emperor to condemn Cecilian for disobedience, 
Constantine, however, contented himself with granting him a 
delay, at the end of which Cecilian was to appear at Milan, 
which so exasperated man} 7 " of the Donatists, that they fled 
from the court to Africa. The Emperor for some time thought 
of going himself into Africa to judge the cause of the Donatists 
in their own country. He accordingly sent back some Donatist 
bishops into Africa, and warned the others by letter of his 
project, adding, that if they could prove but one of their 
numerous accusations against Cecilian, he would consider such 
proof as a demonstration of all the rest. 4 

The Emperor afterwards gave up this scheme, and returned 
to that which had been first proposed, and in November 316 
caused the contending parties to appear before him at Milan. 
Cecilian presented himself before the Emperor, as well as his 
antagonists. The Emperor heard both sides, examined their 
depositions, and finally declared that Cecilian was innocent, 
that his adversaries were calumniators, and sent a copy of his 
decision to Eumalius, his vicar in Africa. 5 The Donatists were 
thus condemned three times, by the two Synods of Eome and 
of Aries, and finally by the Emperor himself. In spite of this, 
to weaken the effect of the late sentence, they spread the 
rumour that the celebrated Hosius Bishop of Corduba, a friend 
of Cecilian, had prejudiced the Emperor against them. 6 

The subsequent history of the schism of the Donatists does 

1 "Coactus," says S. Augustine, I.e. Of. Epist. 43, n. 20. 

2 See above, p. 176 ff. 3 Epist. 43, n 20. 

4 Opt. Mil. pp. 185, 187, ed. Dup. 6 Dupin, I.e. p. 187. 

6 August. Contr. Parmen. lib. i. c. 5. 



SYNOD OF ANCYEA. 199 

not belong to this place ; a and we have now to consider two 
other synods which, were held in the East about the same time 
as that of Aries, and which merit all our attention. They are 
those of Ancyra and Neocaesarea. 

SEC. 16. The Synod of Ancyra in 314/ 

Maximilian having died during the summer of 313, the 
Church in the East began to breathe freely, says Eusebius. 2 He 
says nothing further about these Synods ; but one of the first, 
and certainly the most celebrated, of these Councils, was that 
of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, which was held for the pur 
pose of healing the wounds inflicted on the Church by the last 
persecution, and especially to see what could be done on the 
subject of the lapsi. 

The best Greek MSS. of the canons of Ancyra contain a very 
ancient preface, which shows, without further specification, 
that the Council of Ancyra was held before that of Nicsea. 
The presence of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch at the Council of 
Ancyra 3 proves that it was held before the year 319, which is 
the year of the death of that bishop. It is, then, between 
313 and 319 that it was held. 4 Binius 5 believes he has dis 
covered a still more exact date, in the fact of the presence 
of Basil Bishop of Amasia at our Synod. According to his 
opinion, this bishop suffered martyrdom in 316, under the 
Emperor Licinius ; but Tillemont has proved that he was pro 
bably not martyred till 320. 6 

It appears from the sixth canon of Ancyra that the Council 
was held, conformably to the apostolic canons, No. 38 (36), in 
the fourth week after Easter. Maximin having died during 
the summer of 313, the first Pentecost after his death fell in 
314; and it is very probable that the Christians immediately 
availed themselves of the liberty which his death gave them 
to come to the aid of the Church. 

1 Cf. the author s article "Donatisten," in the KlrcJienlexkon of Wetzer 
and Welte, Bd. iii. 

2 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. x. 3. 

3 Cf. the list of the members of the Council in Mansi, ii. 534 ; in Hard 
i. 279. 

4 Cf. Tillemont, Mem. etc. vi. 85. 6 In Mansi, Collet. Condi, ii. 536. 
6 Tillemont, Mdmoires, etc. v. 219, 220. 



A 



200 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

This is also what the words of Eusebius clearly indicate. 1 
Baronius, 2 Tillemont, 8 Eemi CeiHier, 4 and others, were there 
fore perfectly right in placing the Synod of Ancyra after the 
Easter which followed the death of Maximin ; consequently 
in 314 

"We have three lists of the bishops who were present at the 
Synod of Ancyra. They differ considerably from one another. 
That which, in addition to the bishops and the towns, names 
the provinces, 5 is evidently, as the Ballerini have shown, of 
later origin : for (a) no Greek MS. contains this list ; (/9) it is 
wanting in the most ancient Latin translations ; (7) the lists 
of the provinces are frequently at variance with the civil 
division of the province at this time. For instance, the list 
speaks of a G-alatia prima, of a Cappadocia prima, of a Cilicia 
prima and secunda, of a Phrygia Pacatiana, all divisions which 
did not then exist. 6 Another list of the bishops who were 
present at Ancyra, but without showing the provinces, is found 
in the Prisca and in the Isidoriaii collection. Dionysius the 
Less does not give a list of the persons : one of this kind has 
not, until lately, been attached to his writings. 7 

In this state of things, it is evident that none of these lists 
are of great value, as they vary so much from each other even 
as to the number of the bishops, which is left undecided, being 
put down between twelve and eighteen. In the longest list 
the following names are found : Vitalis of Antioch, Agricolaus 
of Coesarea in Palestine, Marcellus of Ancyra, who had become 
so famous in the Arian controversy, Lupus of Tarsus, Basil of 
Amasia, Philadelphius of Juliopolis in Galatia, Eustolius of 
Mcomedia, Heraclius of Tela in Great Armenia, Peter of Ico- 
nium, Nunechius of Laodicea in Phrygia, Sergianus of Antioch 
in Pisidia, Epidaurus of Perga in Pamphilia, Narcissus of 
Neronias in Cilicia, Leontius of Csesarea in Cappadocia, Longinus 
of ISTeocaesarea in Pontus, Amphion of Epiphania in Cilicia, 
Salamenus of Germanicia in Ccelesyria, and Germanus of 

1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 3. 2 Ad an. 314, n. 77. 

3 Mem. vi. 85. 4 Hist, des auteurs sacr6s, iii. 713. 

5 Printed in Mansi, ii. 534. 

6 Cf. Opp. Leonis M. t. iii. p. xxii. ed. Ballerini. 

fBallerim, I.e. et p. 105, not. 1; Hard. i. 279; Mansi, ii. 527, not. 1} 
Kemi Ceillier, I.e. 714. 



SYNOD OF ANCYEA. 201 

ISTeapolis in Palestine. Several of these were present, eleven 
years after, at the first (Ecumenical Council of Mcsea. They 
belonged, as we see, to such different provinces of Asia Minor 
and Syria, that the Synod of Ancyra may, in the same sense 
as that of Aries, be considered a concilium plenarium, that is, 
a general council of the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria. 
From the fact that Vitalis of Antioch is mentioned first (primo 
loco), and that Antioch was the most considerable seat of those 
who were represented at Ancyra, it is generally concluded 
that Vitalis presided over the Synod ; and we admit this sup 
position, although the Libellus synodicus assigns the presidency 
to Marcellus of Ancyra, 1 

CAN. 1. 
TOU? iTTiOvcravTas, elra iTravaTraXaicravTas 



/c 

KOI eTTiTr}V(iavTaS KOL TreLcravras iva 



T auras Se raj OK,eiv /col rco a^jJLari, Trpocray- 
Bfjvai TOVTOVS e Soe r^? jj^ev Ti/jurjs TT?? Kara rrjv xaOeSpav 
, Trpocrcfrepeiv e avrovs rf ofJiCkelv rj oXo>? \eLrovpyelv TI 
Xeirovpryi&v fir) e^etvai,. 2 

" Priests who sacrificed (during the persecution), but after 
wards repenting, resumed the combat not only in appearance, 
but in reality, shall continue to enjoy the honours of their 
office, but they may neither sacrifice or preach, nor fulfil any 
priestly office." 

In this translation we have left out a great incidental pro 
position (from pyre TrpofcaTacrKevda-avTas to f jrpoo-a %6jjvai) ) be- 

1 In Mansi, I.e. p. 539 ; Hard. v. 1499. 

2 We find the Greek text of the canons of Ancyra, together with the old 
Latin translations "by Dionysius the Less and Isidore, in Hardouin, i. 271, 
and Mansi, ii. 514 sqq. In Mansi there is also a more accurate transla 
tion by Gentianus Hervettis. The Greek text is also found in the mediaeval 
Greek commentaries of Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenus, quoted by Beveridge, 
Synodicon, scu Pandeclce canon. (Oxon. 1672), i. 375 sq. The Greek text of the 
canons of Ancyra is also to "be found in Bruns, Biblioth. Eccl. i. 66 sqq. 
Eouth has published it in his JReliquice sacrce, iii. 405 sqq., with notes of his 
own, and of others, particularly those of Beveridge and Justell. "We give here 
the ordinary text, and place the most important readings of Eouth in brackets. 
The canons of Ancyra have also been commented upon by Van Espen, Com- 
mentar. in canones et decreta (Colon. 1755), p. 107 sq., and by Herbst in the 
Tiibinyer Quartalschrift of 1821, S. 413 sq. 



202 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

cause to be understood it requires some previous explanations, 
Certain priests who had sacrificed to idols, wishing to be re 
stored to favour, performed a sort of farce to deceive the 
bishop and the faithful. They bribed some officers and their 
subordinates, then presented themselves before them as Chris 
tians, and pretended to submit to all kinds of tortures, which 
were not really, but only apparently applied to them, accord 
ing to the plan which had been previously arranged. The 
Council also says : " Without having made any arrangements, 
and without its being understood and agreed that they should 
appear to submit to tortures which were only to be apparently 
inflicted on them." 

It was quite justifiable, and in accordance with the ancient 
and severe discipline of the Church, when this Synod no longer 
allowed priests, even when sincerely penitent, to discharge 
priestly functions. It was for this same reason that the two 
Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides were deposed, and that 
the judgment given against them was confirmed in 254 by 
an African synod held under S. Cyprian. 1 The first canon, 
together with the second and third, was inserted in the Corpus 
juris can? 
, CAN. 2. 

AIO.KOVOVS o/W? OvaavTas, yu-era Se ravra avaTTCLKaicravra^ 
Tr)V i^ev a\\v]V TI^V $VlV t TreTravcrQat Se avrovs Trdcnjs r?}? 
lepas \eiTovpylas, TYJS Te TOV aprov rj Trorrfpiov ava^epeiv rj 
el pivTOi TLVZS TWV eTTicrfcoTrcov TOVTOIS crvvlSoiev ttd- 
riva T) TCLTreivuxTiv TrpaoT^ro^ KOI eGeXoiev TrXelov TI Si,- 
Sovcu rj d<paipeiv, eV avrols elvai, TTJV e^ovaiav. 

" In the same manner, the deacons who may have sacri 
ficed, but have afterwards returned to the fight, shall keep 
the dignities of their office, but shall no longer fulfil any holy 
function, shall no longer offer the bread and wine (to the cele 
brant or to the communicants), shall no longer preach. But 
if any bishops, out of regard to their efforts (for their ardent 
penitence), and to their humiliation, wish to grant them more 
privileges, or to withdraw more from them, they have power 
to do so." 

According to this, such deacons could no longer exercise 

1 See above, cli. 5. a C. 32, (list. 50. 



SYNOD OF ANCYEA. 20 



o 



their ministry in the Church, but they continued their offices 
as almoners to the poor, and administrators of the property of 
the Church, etc. etc. It is doubtful what is meant by " to 
offer the bread and the chalice." In the primitive Church, 
S. Justin 1 testifies that the deacons distributed the holy 
communion to the laity. It is possible that the canon refers 
to this distribution. Van Espen, 2 however, thinks that, at 
the time of the Synod, deacons no longer distributed the con 
secrated bread to the faithful, but only the chalice, according to 
a prescription of the Apostolic Constitutions? and an expression 
of Cyprian ; 4 so that dvafydpeiv aprov rj Trorrfpiov (because 
there is mention of aprov, bread) must here relate to the pre 
sentation of the bread and the chalice made by the deacon 
to the bishop or priest who celebrated at the time of the 
offertory. But it seems from the eighteenth canon of ISTicaea, 
that this primitive custom, in virtue of which deacons also 
distributed the eucharistic bread as well as wine, had not 
entirely disappeared at the beginning of the fourth century, 
and consequently at the time of the Synod of Ancyra. 

The word K^pvo-aeiv, to proclaim, needs explanation. It 
means in the first place the act of preaching ; that is declared 
to be forbidden to diaconis lapsis. But deacons had, and still 
have, other things to proclaim (/cTjpva-cretv). They read the 
Gospel, they exclaimed : Flectamus genua, Proccdamus in pace, 
Nc quis audientium, Ne qiiis infidelium ; 5 and these functions 
were also comprised in the /cypvo-aeLv. 6 

Finally, the canon directs bishops to take into considera 
tion the circumstances and the worth of the diaconi lapsi in 
adding to or deducting from the measures decreed against 
them. 

CAN. 3. 

Tou? favyovras real cruXA^^eWa? ^7 VTTO oiKeiwv TrapaSo- 
aXXft)? ra vTrdp^pvra dffraipeOevras rj vTro/jbelvavTas 
TI et? ^ea^rriLOv e/^^X^^e^ra? fiowvrds re on elal 



1 Apolofj. i. n. 65 and 67. 2 Commentar. I.e. p. 108. 

3 Lib. viii. c. 13. 

4 See above, the remarks on the fifteenth canon of Aries, and further on, the 
commentary on the eighteenth canon of Nieiea. 

5 Const. Apost. viii. 5. 6 Van Espen, I.e. 



204 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



XpicTTiavol Kal 7repi(r^i(70epTa^ (Treptcr^eOevTa^) y/rot et? 

7T/30? j3lav ejjifBaXXovTWV TWV ftia^ofjievwv r) {3pw/j,d TL 
os avaffKVjV Se^ajjievovs, o/^oXo^ouz/Ta? Be $i6\ov OTL elal Xpt,cr- 
Tiavol, Kal rb irevOos rov GV^OVTO^ del e7rL$eLtcvvfJLevov$ rfj Trdcrr) 
Karao-To\f) /cat TU> cr^aart teal rfj rov /3cov TaTreivoTriTi TOVTQVS 
to? ea> a/JLapTij/JiaTos oVra? TT}? Kowwvias prj KQ)\vecr6ai, el 8e 
Kal eKco\i>0ijcrav VTTO TWOS, TrepiGcroTepas afcpifieias evetcev r) tcai 
TIVWV aryvoiq, evOv? TrpocrSe xOrjvai TOVTO $e 6/Wa)<? eiri re 
K TOV akrjpov Kal TMV a\\(i)V \alKwv, TTpoo-e^Tdadr] Se 
el SvvavTat, Kal \aiKol Trj avTfi avajKy iiTTOTrea-ovTes Trpoo- 
et? TCL^LV eSo^ev ovv Kal TOVTOVS 0)9 [Arj oev rj/^apT rjK.oTas, el 
Kal TI 7rpo\a/3ov(ra evplcrKOiTO opOrj TOV (3tov 



"Those who fled before persecution, but were caught, or 
were betrayed by those of their own houses, or in any other 
way, who have borne with resignation the confiscation of their 
property, tortures, and imprisonment, declaring themselves to 
be Christians, but who have subsequently been vanquished, 
whether their oppressors have by force put incense into their 
hands, or have compelled them to take in their mouth the 
meat offered to idols, and who, in spite of this, have perse 
vered in avowing themselves Christians, and have evinced 
their sorrow for what had befallen them by their dejection 
and humility, such, not having committed any fault, are not 
to be deprived of the communion of the Church ; and if they 
have been so treated by the over-severity or ignorance of 
their bishop, they are immediately to be reinstated. This 
applies equally to the clergy and to the laity. In the same 
way it was to be inquired if the laity, to whom violence has 
been used (that is to say, who have been physically obliged 
to sacrifice), might be promoted to the ministry (ra^t?, ordo) ; 
and it was decreed that, not having committed any fault (in 
the case of these sacrifices), they might be elected, provided 
their former life was found to be consistent." 

The meaning of this canon is clear : " Physical constraint 
relieves from responsibility." That there had been physical 
constraint was proved in the following ways : 

(a.) By the previous endurance with which they had borne 
confiscation, tortures, and imprisonment. 



SYNOD OF ANCYEA. 205 

(/?.) By this, that during their sufferings they had always 
declared themselves Christians. 

Among the expressions of this canon the word irepio-^ior- 
Oevras of the tcxtu-s mdgatus presents the chief difficulties. 
Zonaras translates it thus : " If their clothes have been torn 
from their bodies :" for 7repur%%Go means to tear away, and 
with TWO, to tear off the clothes from any one. But the true 
reading is Trepio-yeOevTas, which Eouth has found in three 
MSS. in the Bodleian Library, 1 and which harmonizes the best 
with the versions of Dionysius the Less and of Isidore. 2 We 
have used this reading (Trepio-^eOevra^ in our translation of 
the canon; for Trepii^w means to surround, to conquer, to 
subdue. 

CAN. 4. 

Hepl T&V 7rpo9 fiiav QVO-OVTWV, eVl Se TOVTOLS real 
Sei7rvr]crdvTa)v els TO, etScwAa, oaoi pev aTrayo/jievoi, /cal 

w avrjXOov /cal ecrdrJTL e%pr]cravTO r JTo\vre\<JTepa fcal 
TOV TrapaafcevacrOlvTOS Befarvov aSta<op&>?, tSo$;ev evi- 
avrov aKpoaaOai, vTTOTrecrelv 8e rpla err), v%fis $e ^QV^ KOIVW- 
vr\(jai err] Svo, /cal Tore e\6elv eVt TO re\,6tov. 

" As to those who have been forced to sacrifice, and who 
have besides eaten the meats consecrated to the gods (that is 
to say, who have been forced to take part in the feasts off the 
sacrifices), the Council decrees, that those who, being forced 
to go to the sacrifice, have gone cheerfully, dressed in their 
best, and shall there have eaten of it indifferently (as if 
there was no difference between this and other meals), shall 
remain one year amongst the audicntes (second class of 
penitents), three years among the substrati (third class of 
penitents), shall take part in the prayers (fourth class) for two 
years, and then finally be admitted to the complete privileges 
of the Church (TO TeXetoz/), that is, to the communion." 



CAN. 5. 
f/ Ocrot S avrj\0cnf fiera fffOrfros 

u oY o\?]<> TT}? dva/cX-lcrecos SaicpvovTes, el eTrXif- 



1 Nos. 26, 158, and 625. 2 Routh, HeliquicB sacrce, iii. 423. 

3 Cf. Suicer, ad h. v. Cf. also, on the penitential system of the primitive 
Church, Binterim, Denkiviirdigkeiten, Bd. v. Thl. ii. S. 362 If. 



206 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



paxrav TOV Trs vTTOTrTaxreci)? rpierr y^povov, 

el Se fjirj etyayov, Svo VTroTrecrovres errj T<W rplra) 
^co^t? Trpocrffropds, Iva TO reXeiov rfj rerpaerLa 
TOU9 Se eVtcr/coTrou? e^ovaiav e^eiv TOV Tpoirov TTJS 
idcravTas (pi\av0pa)7revecr0ai, rj Tr\eiova irpocr- 
TiOevai xpovov Trpo TCCLVTWV Se Kal o Trpodjo^v /3/09 /cal o /zera 
TavTa e^eTa^ecrOa), KOL OUTGJ? 77 ^Ckavdpwiria e7nfJL6Tpeicr6a}. 

" JSTevertlieless, those who have appeared there (that is, at 
the feast of the sacrifices) in mourning habits, who have been 
full of grief during the repast, and have wept during the whole 
time of the feast, shall be three years amongst the siibstrati, 
and then be admitted, without taking part in the offering ; 
but if they have not eaten (and have merely been present at 
the feast), they are to be sulstrati for two years, and the third 
year they shall take part in the offering (in the degree of the 
consistentes, ava-Taa-i^, so as to receive the complement (the 
holy communion) in the fourth year. The bishops shall have 
the power, after having tried the conduct of each, to mitigate 
the penalties, or to extend the time of penitence ; but they 
must take care to inquire what has passed before and after 
their fall, and their clemency must be exercised accordingly." 

"We may see that this canon is closely allied to the pre 
ceding one, and that the one explains the other : there only 
remains some obscurity arising from the expression %o>/ol9 
TTpoafopas. Aubespine thought that there is here a reference 
to the offerings which were presented by penitents, in the 
hope of obtaining mercy ; but Suicer remarks 1 that it is not 
so, and that the reference here is certainly to those offerings 
which are presented by the faithful during the sacrifice (at 
the offertory). According to Suicer, the meaning of the canon 
would be : " They may take part in divine worship, but not 
actively ;" that is, " they may mingle their offerings with those 
of the faithful :" which corresponds with the fourth or last 
degree of penitence. But as those who cannot present their 
offerings during the sacrifice are excluded from the communion, 
the complete meaning of this canon is : " They may be present 
at divine service, but may neither offer nor communicate with 
the faithful." Consequently %w/K9 irpoa-cfropas also comprises 

1 Thesaurus, s.v. 



SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 207 

the exclusion from the communion ; but it does not follow 
from this that Trpoafapd means the sacrament of the altar, as 
Herbst and Eouth have erroneously supposed. The eucharistic 
service has, we know, two parts : it is, in the first place, a 
sacrifice ; and then, as a reception of the Lord s Supper, it 
is a sacrament. And the whole act may be called rrpoa-^opd ; 
but the mere reception of the communion cannot be called 
trpocHpopd. 1 The canon does not clearly point out the time 
during which penitents were to remain in the fourth degree 
of penitence, except in the case of those who had not actually 
eaten of the sacrificed meats. It says, that at the end of a 
year they could be received in full, that is to say, at the eucha 
ristic table. The time of penitence is not fixed for those who 
had actually eaten the sacrificed meats : perhaps it was also 
a year ; or it may be they were treated according to the fourth, 
canon, that is to say, reduced for two years to the fourth degree 
of penitence. The penitents of the fifth canon, less culpable 
than those of the fourth, are not, as the latter, condemned to 
the second degree of penitence. 

CAN. 6. 

Hepl TWV dTT6L\f) JJLOVOV el^dvTWV /cdKdcrecos /col a <fiaip ecrecos 
rj /-terot/aW KOI QVGOVTWV KCLI pexpi, TOV irapovTOS 
fj,rj fj,6Tavo7]crdvTQ)i> fjLTjSe eTCHJTpe fydvTWv, vvv Be Trapd 
TOV Kaipov T??9 crvvoSov 7rpocre\66vT(iiv KOL el? Sidvoiav TT}? TTL- 
kvwv, e^o^6 f^e^pi TT}? /u^aA?;? rjf^epa^ e^? d/cpoaariv 
i, teal f^era TTJV [ji<yd\r)v fjfjiepav VTroTreaGiv Tpia trrj real 
d\\a 8uo err) Koivwrjcrac, %a)/345 Trpoafyopas, KCLI OVTCOS 
\0eiv eirl TO Te\eiov } wcrre TIJV Trdcrav e^aeTiav TrX^paicraf el 
e Tive<$ Trpo TTJS crvvo^ov TavTTjs eBe^O^aav els [ierdvoiav, CLTT 
efteivov TOV %povov \e\oyicr0ai, avTols Trjv dpyfyv T?,$ e 
el [JiivToi KivSvvos /cal OavaTOV Trpoor^o/cla etc vocrov rj d 
Tiz/o? 7rpo<acrea)5 cru/i/3at77, TOVTOVS eTrl opa> ^e^drjvai. 

" As to those who yielded on the mere threat of punish 
ment, or of the confiscation of their property, or of exile, and who 
have sacrificed, and to this day have not repented or returned, 
but who on the occasion of this Synod have repented, and 
shall resolve to return, it is decreed, that until the great feast 

1 Cf. furtlier on, can. 16. 



208 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

(Easter) they shall be admitted to the degree of audientcs ; 
that they shall after the great feast be siibstrati for three 
years ; then that they shall be admitted, but without taking 
part in the sacrifice for two years, and that then only they 
shall be admitted to the full service (to the communion), so 
that the whole time will be six years. For those who have 
been admitted to a course of penitence previous to this Synod, 
the six years will be allowed to date from the moment of 
its commencement. If they were exposed to any danger, or 
threatened with death following any illness, or if there was 
any other important reason, they should be admitted, con 
formably to the present prescription (0/309)." 

The meaning of the last phrase of the canon is, that if the 
sick regain their health, they will perform their penance, 
according to what is prescribed. Zonaras thus very clearly 
explains this passage. 1 This canon is made intelligible by the 
two preceding. A similar decision is given in the eleventh 
Nicene canon. 

As we have previously remarked (sec. 16), there is a chro 
nological signification in the expression " till the next Easter/* 
compared with that of " the six years shall be accomplished." 
According to the thirty-sixth (thirty-eighth) apostolic canon, 
a synod was to be held annually in the fourth week after 
Easter. If, then, a penitent repented at the time of the synod, 
and remained among the audientes till the next Easter, he had 
done penance for nearly a year. And adding three years for 
the degree of the substratio, and two for the last degree, the 
six years were completed. It is then with good reason that 
we have deduced from the sixth canon that the Council of 
Ancyra was held shortly after Easter, and very probably in 
the fourth week after this feast, that is, in the time prescribed 
by the apostolic canons. 2 

CAN. 7. 

Ilepl TWV orvve&TiaOevTtoV ev eoprf) i()viK.f) ev TOTTCO afywptcr- 
rofc eOvL/cols, iSta /Bpca/JLara eTriKOfJUcrafjievcuv teal fya y 
Bierlav viroTreaovTas ^eOrjvat To Be el %pr) p,era 



1 In Bevereg. Synodicon, i. 380. This condition was also imposed by the 
Council of Orange in 441, can. 3 ; in Hard. i. 1784. 

2 This sentence is added from the French translation. 



SYNOD OF ANCYBA. 209 

e/cacrrov TWV enter KOTTGJV So/ct/iacrat KOI rov a\\ov 
ftiov ecf> e/cdarov afyuxiai. 

" As to those who, during a heathen festival, have seated 
themselves in the locality appointed for that festival, and have 
brought and eaten, their food there, they shall be two years 
sulstrati, and then admitted. As to the question of their 
admission to the offering, each bishop shall decide thereon, 
taking into consideration the whole life of each person." 

Several Christians tried, with worldly prudence, to take a 
middle course. On the one hand, hoping to escape persecution, 
they were present at the feasts of the heathen sacrifices, which 
were held in the buildings adjoining the temples ; and on the 
other, in order to appease their consciences, they took their 
own food, and touched nothing that had been offered to the 
gods. These Christians forgot that S. Paul had ordered 1 that 
meats sacrificed to the gods should be avoided, not because 
they were tainted in themselves, as the idols were nothing, 
but from another, and in fact a twofold reason : 1st, Because, 
in partaking of them, some had still the idols in their hearts, 
that is to say, were still attached to the worship of idols, and 
thereby sinned; and 2dly, Because others scandalized their 
brethren, and sinned in that way. To these two reasons a 
third may be added, namely, the hypocrisy and the duplicity 
of those Christians who wished to appear heathens, and never 
theless to remain Christians. The Synod punished them with 
two years of penance in the third degree, and gave to each 
bishop the right, at the expiration of this time, either to admit 
them to communion, or to make them remain some time longer 
in the fourth degree. 

CAK 8. 

01 Se Sevrepov KOI rplrov Qixjav-rt-s pera ft la?, rerpaeriav 
vrroirecreTaxrav, Svo Se en? apl? Trpoafopa? 



Those who, being compelled, have sacrificed two or three 
times, shall remain sulstrati for four years ; they shall take 
part in the worship, without presenting any offering, for two 
years (as consistentes of the fourth degree) ; the seventh they 
snail be admitted to the communion/ " 



1 1 Cor. viii. 
O 



210 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

CAN. 9. 

"Ocroi, Se ur) fJLovov aTrea-T^aav d\\a teal eTravecrTrjcrav Kal 
rjvdyKaorav dSeX^ovs Kal amot e<yevovTO TOV ava^KacrOrivai, OVTOL 
TTI aev Tola TOV Tm aKpodcreo)^ $edcrOa)crav TOTTOV, ev Se a\\ii 

I t & i* 

(a TOV T7}9 U7T07TTa)crea}9, aXkov Se eviavTov fcoivwvrjcrdTWcrav 
Trpoacfjopds, Iva TTJV Be/caeTlav Tr\7)pa)cravTe$ TOV TeXeiov 

eV (JLeVTOL TOVTW TO) ftpOVO) Kal TOV d\\OV aVT&V 

filov. 

" Those who have not only apostatized, but have become 
the enemies of their brethren, and have compelled them (to 
apostasy), or have been the cause of the constraint put upon 
them, shall remain for three years among the audientcs (second 
degree), then six years with the siibstrati ; they shall then 
take part in the worship, without offering (in quality of con- 
sistentes), for one year ; and not until the expiration of ten 
years shall they receive full communion (the holy Eucharist). 
Their conduct during all this time shall also be watched." * 

. . j CAN. 10. 

AicLKOvoi oaroi KaOiGTavTai, Trap 1 avT^v TTJV KaTacrTacnv el 
fji,apTvpavTO Kal e (>ao~av ^prjvai (yaaija-ai,, fjurj Svvduevot, ow 



OVTOL ^era TavTa ^a^r\aavT^ ecrTcocrav ev Trj 
Sia TO eTTLTpaTrrjvat, CIVTOVS VTTO TOV ITTLO-KOTTOV TOVTO Se el 
Tives o-ia)7rija-avT$ /cal /caTa^e^dfjuevoi ev Tfj ^eipOTOvia fjieveiv 
oi/ro)9 peTo, Tavja rjKOov eirl yd/Aov, TreTravcrOat, avTOV$ 
Sia/covla?. 

" If deacons, at the time of their appointment (election), 
declare that they must marry, and that they cannot lead a 
celibate life, and if accordingly they marry, they may continue 
in their ministry, because the bishop (at the time of their 
institution) gave them leave to marry ; but if at the time of 
their election they have not spoken, and have agreed in 
taking holy orders to lead a celibate life, and if later they 
marry, they shall lose their diaconate." 

This canon has been inserted in the Corpus juris canonici? 

1 Cf. the observations on the fourth canon. 

2 C. 8, dist. 28. Cf. Van Espen, Comment. I.e. p. 112; Herbst, Ttibinge 
Quartaischrift, 1821, S. 423, and our observations on the history of Paphnutiu 
at the Council of Nicsea. 



SYNOD OF ANCYKA, 211 

CAN. 11. 

Ta<$ [nvqcrTevOeLcras Kopas /cal //.era raura VTT aXXcov dpjra- 
<ye/<ra9 e^o^ev aTroBiSocruai T0?9 TrpofjLvrjG Tevo aiiievois, u /cal (Biav 
VTT avTwv TrdOoiev. 

" Damsels who are betrothed, who are afterwards carried off 
by others, shall be given back to those to whom they are 
betrothed, even when they have been treated with violence." 

This canon treats only of betrothed women (by the sponsalia 
de futuro), not of those who are married (by the sponsalia de 
prwsenti). In the case of the latter there would be no doubt 
as to the duty of restitution. The man who was betrothed 
was, moreover, at liberty to receive his affianced bride who 
had been carried off, or not. It was thus that S. Basil had 
already decided in canon 2 2 of his canonical letter to Amphi- 
lochius. 1 

CAN. 12. 

ToU9 TTpO TOV (BaTTTKTfJLaTOS T0VKOTa<$ KOI flGTCL TOLVTa {BaTTTlCT- 

OevTas eBofcev et9 TC&W TrpodyecrOai, 0)9 a7roXoucraue^ou9. 

9 9 c * * 

" Those who have sacrificed to the gods before their bap 
tism, and who have afterwards been baptized, may be promoted 
to holy orders, as (by baptism) they are purified from all their 
former sins/ 

This canon does not speak generally of all those who sacri 
ficed before baptism ; for if a heathen sacrificed before having 
embraced Christianity, he certainly could not be reproached 
for it after his admission. It was quite a different case with 
a catechumen, who had already declared for Christianity, but 
who during the persecution had lost courage, and sacrificed. 
In this case it might be asked whether he could still be ad 
mitted to the priesthood. The Council decided that a baptized 
catechumen could afterwards be promoted to holy orders. 2 

The fourteenth canon of !Nicsea also speaks of the catechu- 
nens who have committed the same fault. 

CAN. 13. 

07TOU9 fJir] %eivai 7rpeo-(3vTepovs r} Siarcovovs 

TIG roO ITI-LCTKOTTOV fieTa <ypa{Audra)v ev eTepa rrapoiKLq. 

1 Cf. Van Esjen, I.e. p. 113. 2 Cf. Van Espen, I.e. p. 113. 



212 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

The literal translation of the Greek text is as follows : 

" It is not permitted to the clwrepiscopi to ordain priests 
and deacons ; neither is this permitted to the priests of the 
towns in other parishes (dioceses) without the written autho 
rity of the bishop of the place." 

In our remarks on the fifty-seventh canon of the Council of 
Laodicea, where it is forbidden to appoint clwrepiscopi (or 
country bishops) for the future, we shall explain what must 
be understood by this office, which is here mentioned for the 
first time. Compare also the eighth and tenth canons of the 
Synod of Antioch in 341, and the second proposition of the 
sixth canon of the Council of Sardica. If the first part of the 
thirteenth canon is easy to understand, the second, on the con 
trary, presents a great difficulty ; for a priest of a town could 
not in any case have the power of consecrating priests and 
deacons, least of all in a strange diocese. Many of the most 
learned men have, for this reason, supposed that the Greek 
text of the second half of the canon, as we have read it, is 
incorrect or defective. 1 It wants, say they, Troieiv TI, or aliguid 
agere, i.e. to complete a religious function. To confirm this sup 
position, they have appealed to several ancient versions, espe 
cially to that of Isidore : scd nee presbyter is civitatis sine episcopi 
prcecepto amplius aliguid imperare, vel sine auctoritate literarum 
ejus in unaquaqiie (some read Iv eKc tary instead of ev erepa) 
parocliia aliguid agere. The ancient Roman MS. of the canons, 
Codex canonum, has the same reading, only that it has pro- 
vincia instead of parochia? Fulgentius Ferrandus, deacon of 
Carthage, who long ago made a collection of canons, 3 translates 
in the same way in his Brcmatio canonum : Ut presbytcri dm- 
tatis sine jussu episcopi nihil jiibcant, nee in unaqiiaqiie parochic 
aliquid agant. Van Espen has explained this canon in the 
same way. 

Eouth has given another interpretation. 4 He maintaine* 
that there was not a word missing in this canon, but that a 
the commencement one ought to read, according to severe 

1 Of. Bevereg. Synodicum, ii., Append, p. 177 ; Yan Espen, I.e. p. 113. 

2 In the edition of the Ballerini of the works of S. Leo, iii. 110 sq. 

3 Fulgentius Ferrandus, ssec. 6. 

4 Rdiqiiice sacrce, iii. 432 sq. 



SYNOD OF ANCYEA. 213 

MSS., %/37riovcG7rot9 in the dative, and further down aX\a ^v 
fjLTjSe instead of a\\a ^Se, then 7rpecr{3vTepov$ (in the accusa 
tive) 7roXea)9, and finally e/cda-rrj instead of erepa ; and that we 
must therefore translate, " Chorepiscopi are not permitted to 
consecrate priests and deacons (for the country), still less (a\\a 
fjirjv fjLTjfie) can they consecrate priests for the town without the 
consent of the bishop of the place." The Greek text, thus 
modified according to some MSS., especially those in the Bod 
leian Library, certainly gives a good meaning. Still a\\a fj,rjv 
fjLrjSe does not mean, "but still less : it means, lut certainly not, 
which makes a considerable difference. 

Besides this, it can very seldom have happened that the 
cliorcpiscopi ordained priests and deacons for a town ; and if so, 
they were already forbidden (implicite) in the first part of the 
canon. 

CAN. 14. 

Tou? ev K\^pa) wpeff^vrlpov^ fj Siaicovovs Surds KOL aTre^o/jLevovs 

r. v ^ c. 5 i / /) \ tf O / -\ * 

Kpewv eoogev efpaTrrecruai,, KCLL OVTOK, ei povX-oivTo, Kpareiv eavrwv 
el Se j3ov\oiVTo ((3$e\i>(7croivTo) } co? fiijSe TO, yLtera Kpewv 
fj,eva \d%ava ecrOieiv, KOI el p^rj VTTiKOtV ra) KCLVOVI 



" Those priests and clerks who abstain from eating meat 
ought (during the love-feasts) to eat it (taste it) ; but they may, 
if they will, abstain from it (that is to say, not eat it). If they 
disdain it (/SSeXiWo^To), so that they- will not eat even 
vegetables cooked with meat, and if they do not obey the 
present canon, they are to be excluded from the ranks of the 
clergy." 

The fifty-second apostolic canon had already promulgated 
the same law with reference to the false Gnostic or Manichean 
asceticism, which declared that matter was satanic, and especi 
ally flesh and wine. Zonaras has perceived and pointed out that 
our canon treated of the agapce, or love-feasts, of the primitive 
Christians. 1 He shows, besides, that e^dirreo-Oai means, to 
touch the meats, in the same sense as aTroyeveaOai, to taste. 
Matthceus Blastares 2 agrees with Zonaras. Finally, Eouth 
lias had the credit of contributing to the explanation of this 

1 In Berereg. Lc. i. 390. 

2 Syntagm. lit. B, c. 9, p. 55. 



214 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

canon, 1 inasmuch as, relying on three MSS., the Collectio of John 
of Antioch and the Latin versions, he has read el Se /3SeXv<7- 
CTOIVTO instead of el e POV\OIVTO, which has no meaning here. 
If povXowro is to be preserved, we must, with Beveridge, insert 
the negation /j,rj. But the reading /SBeXvcraoLvro has still in 
its favour that the fifty-second apostolic canon, just quoted, 
and which treats of the same question, has the expression 
/SSeXuo-c-o/xei/o? in the same sense as our canon. Let us add 
that Kpareiv eavrwv ought to he taken in the sense of l 
that is, to abstain. 

CAN. 15. 

Hepl rwv Siafyepowrwv rat /cvpiaxa), ocra ITTKJKOTTQV 
oWo? TT peer f3i>T6 pot, 7rcio\7]crav, ava{Bd\,el<j&ai (avaKa\e2<j0aL) TO 
KvptaKov, ev Se rfj /cpiaei TOV ITTLO-KOTTOV dual, elirep 

TTJV TLfJirjV eire KCU p,rj, Sia TO TroXA.a/a? Tr t v 
rwv jreirpa^v^v aTrooeScoKevai, avTols rourot? TrXet- 
ova TTJV TifAriv. 

" If the priests, during the vacancy of an episcopal see, 
have sold anything belonging to the Church/ she (the 
Church) has the right to reclaim it (ava,Ka\ela6ai) ; and it is 
for the bishop to decide whether they (the buyers) are to 
receive the price given for the purchase, seeing that often the 
temporary use of the article sold to them has been worth more 
than the price paid for it." 

If the purchaser of ecclesiastical properties has realized 
more by the temporary revenue of such properties than the 
price of the purchase, the Synod thinks there is no occasion 
to restore him this price, as he has already received a suffi 
cient indemnity from the revenue, and as, according to the 
rules then in force, interest drawn from the purchase money 
was not permitted. 3 Besides, the purchaser had clone wrong 
in buying ecclesiastical property during the vacancy of a see 
(sede vacante). Beveridge and Kouth have shown that in the 
text avaKokelfjOcu, and Trpoa-oSov must be read. 4 

1 JReliquicc sacrce, iii. 440. 

2 Kvfiaxov, that is, the Church, or the property of the Church. Cf. Suicer, 
Thesaurus, s. h. v. 

3 Herbst, TiiUnger QuartdlscJirift, 1821, S. 430. 

4 Kouth, fieliqu .ce sacrce, iii. 441 f. 



SYNOD OF ANCYRA, 215 



L> 



CAN. 16. 

Tlepl TWV aXoyevcrafjievcDV rj Kal dXoyevo/iievwv, OCTOL Trplv 
elKOcraereis tyeveaOai riaapTOV, rrkvre. Kal SeKa erecriv iiirorreaov- 

* tig 

T69 Koiv&vias rvyyavercoaav T7?9 efc T9 Trpocrevva^. elra ev TV 

/V I /V * t 

Lare\ecravTes GTTJ rrevre, Tore Kal TTJ? Trpoafyopas 
~av e^era^eaOco Se avTwv Kal 6 ev rfj vTroTrroocrei, 
J/09, Kal OVTCGS Tvy^avercocrav r^9 (f)L\avdpa)7rias el &e Tive? 



ev rot9 a/^apracrL <ye<yovacri, } TT^V fiatcpav e^ercocrav 



ocrot Se vTrepfidvres TT^V rjKiKiav Tavrqv Kal <yvva?Kas 

i err} 
Trpocr- 



TrepnreTrT&Kacri rut dfAaprtffJbaTi,, Trevre Kal eiKocri err} 



a9, elra eKTeXeaavTes Trevre erij ev TTJ KOLVWVLO, TCOV 
Kal vTrepfidvTes TOV rrevrriKovraerri ^povov rj/jiapTov, eVl Ty ef oS& 



Those who have been or are now guilty of lying with 
beasts, supposing they are not twenty years old when they 
commit this sin, shall be substrati for fifteen years ; they 
shall then be allowed to join in the prayers for five years 
(and will consequently live in the fourth degree of peni 
tence) ; and after that time they may assist at the holy 
sacrifice. An examination must also be made of their con 
duct while they were siibstrati, and also notice taken of the 
lives they led. As for those who have sinned immoderately 
in this way (i.e. who have for a long time committed this sin), 
they must undergo a long substratio (no allowance will be 
made in their case). Those who are more than twenty, and 
have been married, and have nevertheless fallen into this sin, 
shall be allowed to share in the prayers only after a substratio 
of twenty-five years ; and after five years sharing in the 
prayers, they shall be allowed to assist at the holy sacrifice. 
If married men more than fifty years old fall into this sin, 
they shall receive the communion only at the end of their lives." 

On the expressions substrati, participation in prayers and in 
the sacrifice, cf. the remarks above on canons 4 and 5. 

CAN. 17. 



r) dyla 



216 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

It is not easy to give the real meaning of this canon. It 
may perhaps mean : " Those who have committed acts of 
bestiality, and, being lepers themselves, have now (tfroi) 
made others so, must pray among the. ^ei^a^o^evoL^! Others 
translate it : " Those who have committed acts of bestiality, 
and are or have been lepers (\e7rpcoo-avras, i.e. having been 
leprous), shall pray among the ^etfiafo^ei oi?." This last 
translation seems to us inexact ; for \e7rpcoaavTas does not 
come from XeTrpaw, but from XeTrpooj, which has a transitive 
meaning, and signifies " to make leprous." But even if we 
adopt the former translation without hesitation, it is still asked 
if the leprosy of which the canon speaks is the malady known 
by that name, and which lepers could communicate to others 
especially by cohabitation ; or if it means spiritual leprosy, 
sin, and especially the sin of bestiality, and its wider exten 
sion by bad example. Van Espen thinks that the canon 
unites the two ideas, and that it speaks of the real leprosy 
caused precisely by this bestial depravity. 2 By the word 
XeifjM^op.evoi some understand those possessed. This is the 
view of Beveridge and Eouth. 3 Others, particularly Suicer, 
think that the Council means by it penitents of the lowest 
degree, the flcntes, who had no right- to enter the church, but 
remained in the porch, in the open air, exposed to all incle 
mencies (xeifjMjt and who must ask those who entered the 
church to intercede for them. 4 

As, however, the possessed also remained in the porch, the 
generic name of ^i^a^o^voi was given to all who were 
there, i.e. who could not enter the church. We may there 
fore accept Suicer s explanation, with whom agree Van Espen, 
Herbst, etc. Having settled this point, let us return to 
the explanation of XeV/oa. It is clear that XeTrpcoo-avras 
cannot possibly mean " those who have been lepers ;" for 
there is no reason to be seen why those who were cured of 
that malady should have to remain outside the church among 

1 The intransitive verb Xscr/jaw would make its participle *.trf*r*<r*f. 

2 Comment. I.e. p. 116. 

3 Bevereg. t. ii. Append, p. 72, in the notes to can. 11 of the Council of 
Kicsea, printed also by Eouth, Ecliq. sacr. iii. 490, cf. ibid. 444. 

4 Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. 



SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 217 



the flentes. Secondly, it is clear that the words 

, etc., are added to give force to the expression a\oyev- 
The preceding canon had decreed different penalties 
for different kinds of a\o^vad^evoi. But that pronounced by 
canon 17 being much severer than the preceding ones, the 

of this canon must be reater sinners than 



those of the former one. This greater guilt cannot consist 
in the fact of a literal leprosy ; for this malady was not a 
consequence of bestiality. But their sin was evidently greater 
when they tempted others to commit it. It is therefore 
\eirpa in the figurative sense that we are to understand ; 
and our canon thus means : " Those who were spiritually 
leprous through this sin, and tempting others to commit it 
made them leprous." 

CAN. 18. 

Ei Tti>9 7Tioveo7rofc KaTaaTa6evTe$ /cat JJLT) $e%6evTe<; VTTO rrjs 
etcetvr)?, et? rjv wvo^aaO^crav, erepais f3ov\oivro irapoi- 
eTrievat /cal j3id%cr0ai rou? fcadearcoTas teal <rra<je.i<$ tavelv 
icar avr&v, TOVTOVS d<popl^6(70ai, eav IJLGVTOI @OV\OLVTO els TO 
TrpeufivTepiov KaOe^eaOat, ei>0a rjcrav irporepov TrpecrySurepot, 
a7ro{3d\\ea-0ai avrovs T^? Tt/i^? eav 8e ^ladTaaia^xri 
KaOea-Twras e/cel eVt(j/co7rof9, cupaipelcrOat, avrovs /cal 
TOV Trpecrfivrepiov /cal ylvecrOa avrovs eKKypv/cTovs. 

" If bishops, when elected, but not accepted by the parish 
for which they are nominated, introduce themselves into other 
parishes, and stir up strife against the bishops who are there 
instituted, they must be excommunicated. But if they (who 
are elected and not accepted) wish to live as priests in those 
places where they had hitherto served as priests, they need 
not. lose that dignity. But if they stir up discord against the 
bishop of the place, they shall be deprived of their presbyterate, 
and be shut out from the Church." 

As long as the people collectively had a share in the elec 
tion of bishops, it often happened in the primitive Church that 
a bishop, regularly elected, was either expelled or rejected by 
a rising of the people. 1 Even although, at the time of his 
election, the majority were in his favour, yet the minority often 
put a stop to it; just as we saw in 1848 and 1849, how a 

1 Van Espen, Comment. I.e. p 117, and Jus Eccles. pars i. tit. 13, c. 1. 



218 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

very small minority tyrannized over whole towns and countries, 
and even drove out persons who displeased them. The thirty- 
fifth apostolical canon (thirty-sixth or thirty-seventh according 
to other reckonings) and the eighteenth of Antioch (A.D. 341) 
spoke also of such bishops driven from their dioceses. 

When one of these bishops tried by violence or by treachery 
to drive a colleague from his see, and to seize upon it, he was 
to incur the penalty of a^opi^eaOaL Van Espen understood 
by that, the deprivation of his episcopal dignity ; * but the 
a(f>opL(Tfjbb<i of the ancient Church signified more than that : it 
signified excommunication, at least the minor excommunica 
tion, or exclusion from the communion of the Church. 2 

But the canon adds, if a bishop not accepted by his Church 
does not make these criminal attempts, but will live modestly 
among the priests of his former congregation, he can do so, and 
" he shall not lose his dignity." Is it here a question of the 
title and dignity of a bishop, but without jurisdiction; or 
does the word TI^TI signify here only the rank of a priest ? 
Dionysius the Less (Exiguus) has taken it in the latter sense, 
and translated it, " If they will, as presbyters, continue in the 
order of the priesthood " (si voluerint in presbyterii ordine ut 
presbyteri residere). The Greek commentators Zonaras 3 and 
others have taken it in the same sense. This canon was added 
to the Corp. JUT. can. (c. 6, dist. 92). 

. CAN. 19. 

"Oaoi irapOeviav eTrayyeXXo/nevo^ aOerovcn *rr)V eTrayyeXiav, rov 
Siyd/awv opov eKirKripovTwcrav. T9 ^evroi 



" All who have taken a vow of virginity, and have broken 
that vow, are to be considered as bigamists (literally, must 
submit to the decrees and prescriptions concerning bigamists). 
We also forbid virgins to live as sisters with men." 

The first part of the canon regards all young persons men 
as well as women- -who have taken a vow of virginity, and 
who, having thus, so to speak, betrothed themselves to God, 
are guilty of a quasi bigamy in violating that promise. They 

1 Commentarius, I.e. p. 117. 2 Cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. u$op%. 

3 In Bever. I.e. t. i. p. 395. Cf. Van Espen, Comm. I.e. p. 117. 



SYNOD OF ANCYEA. 219 

must therefore incur the punishment of bigamy (successive*); 
which, according to S. Basil the Great, 1 consisted in one year s 
seclusion. This canon, which Gratian adopted (c. 24, causa 27, 
qusest. 1), speaks only of the violation of the vow by a lawful 
marriage, whilst the thirteenth canon of Elvira speaks of those 
who break their vow by incontinence. In the second part the 
canon treats of the crvveicraKToi. On this point we refer to 
our remarks on the third canon of Isficasa, and on the twenty- 
seventh of Elvira. 

CAN. 20. 

Edv TWOS ywfy fJLQL^evOfj TJ fJLOi ^evo r) ri?, ev eTrra erecri, 
(Set) avrov TOV reXeiov rv^elv Kara TOU? /3a0/jiov$ TOZ)? 



" If any one has violated a married woman, or has broken 
the marriage bond, he must for seven years undergo the diffe 
rent degrees of penance, at the end of which he will be ad 
mitted into the communion of the Church." 

The simplest explanation of this canon is, "that the man 
or woman who has violated the marriage bond shall undergo 
a seven years penance ; " but many reject this explanation, 
because the text says avrbv TV^&IV, and consequently can refer 
only to the husband. Eleury and Eouth 2 think the canon 
speaks, as does the seventieth of Elvira, of a woman who has 
broken the marriage tie with the knowledge and consent of 
her husband. The husband would therefore in this case be 
punished for this permission, just as if he had himself com 
mitted adultery. Van Espen has given another explanation : 
" That he who marries a woman already divorced for adultery 
is as criminal as if he had himself committed adultery." 3 But 
this explanation appears to us more forced than that already 
given ; and we think that the Greek commentators Balsamon 
and Zonaras were right in giving the explanation we have 
offered first as the most natural. They think that the Synod 
punished every adulterer, whether man or woman, by a seven 
years penance. There is no reason for making a mistake 

1 Basilius, ad Ampliilocli., 3d vol. of the Bened. ed. of his works, p. 272. Cf. 
our remarks on the third and seventh canons of Neocsesarea. 

2 Routh, Rtliq. sacr. iii. 447; Flenry, Hist. Eccl. t. ii. liv. x. 16. 

3 Commentar. I.e. p. 118. 



220 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

because only the word avrov occurs in the passage in which 
the penalty is fixed ; for avrov here means the guilty party, 
and applies equally to the woman and the man : besides, in 
the preceding canon the masculine ocrot e7rayye\\6fjivoi, includes 
young men and young women also. It is probable that the 
Trullan Synod of 692, in forming its eighty-seventh canon, 
had in view the twentieth of Ancyra. The sixty-ninth canon 
of Elvira condemned to a lighter punishment only five years 
of penance him who had been only once guilty of adultery. 

CAN. 21.. 

Tlepl T&V ryvvaiK&v T&V K7ropvevovaa)V /cal avaipovacov ra 
real cnrovSa^ova-cov <f)6opia Troieiv o fj,ev Trporepos 0/305 
e^ofiov e/ctoXvcrev, /cal TOVTO) crvvTiOevrai* 
Tepov Se TL evpovres wpi<ja[JLev ^GKaerrj ^povov /cara TOL/? 
TOZ)? topicr/jievovs (adde ifkrip&crai). 

" Women who prostitute themselves, and who kill the chil 
dren thus begotten, or who try to destroy them when in their 
wombs, are by ancient law excommunicated to the end of 
their lives. We, however, have softened their punishment, 
and condemned them to the various appointed degrees of 
penance for ten years." 

The sixty-third canon of Elvira had forbidden the com 
munion to be administered to such women even on their 
death-beds ; and this was the canon which the Synod of 
Ancyra had probably here in view. 1 The expression KOI 
TOUTCO crvvTiOevTcu, is vague : rwe? may be understood, and it 
might be translated, " and some approve of this severity ;" or 
we might understand al, and translate with Eouth, 2 " The same 
punishment will be inflicted on those who assist in causing 
miscarriages :" the words then mean, " and those who assist 
them." We think, however, the first explanation is the easier 
and the more natural. Gentianus Hervetus and Van Espen 
have adopted it, translating thus : et ei giiidam assentimtur. 

CAN. 22. 

Ilepl efcovcrtaiv <povcov, vTroTTLTrrercoo-av fJiev, rov >e re\e[ov ev 
TOV /3lov 






1 Van Espen, I.e. p. 119. 2 l.c. p. 447 sq. 

8 Cf. Mansi, ii. 519 ; Van Espen, Com. p. 119. 



SYNOD OF ANCYKA. 221 

"As to wilful murderers, they must be suMrati, and 
allowed to receive the communion only at the end of their life." 

CAN. 23. 

ETTL dfcovcricov <p6va>v, 6 /j,ev Trporepo? 0/309 ev eTrraeria 
K\vei rov reXelov fjicraor^etv Kara TOI)? wpicr^evovs ftaOfiov? 
6 Se Sevrepos rov TrevraeTfj %povov Tfkrjpwcrai. 

" As to unpremeditated murder, the earlier ordinance 
allowed communion (to the homicide) at the end of a seven 
years penance ; the second required only five years." 

Of the first and second ordinances referred to in this canon 
nothing further is known j 1 as to the terms 0/009, reXeioz/, and 
l, see the canons of Ancyra already explained. 



CAN. 24. 

Ol KarajJiavrevofJievoi Kol TCU<; crvvrjOelais TU>V 
%aKo\ov0ovvTes rj elcrd^ovre^ TLVCLS et9 TOU9 eavrwv 
dvevpe&et (pap/jia/ceiwv r) Kal KaOdpcrei,, VTTO TOV KCUVQVCL TTLTT- 
rerwaav rfjs irevTaeria^ Kara rou9 {BaOfJiovs (apicrfjievovs, rpla 
err) uTTOTrrcocrea^ Kal Suo err) eu^9 %&>/>!<? Trpocrfyopas. 

" Those who foretell the future, and follow pagan customs, 
or admit into their houses people (magicians) in order to 
discover magical remedies, or to perform expiations, must be 
sentenced to a five years penance, to three years of siibstrcdio, 
and to two years of attendance at prayers without the sacri 
fice (non-communicating attendance)." 

"We must refer to the explanations we have given under 
canon 4 on the different degrees of penance. It has long 
been known (as witnesses we have the old Greek commenta 
tors Ealsamon and Zonaras, 2 and the old Latin interpreters 
Dionysius the Less and Isidore, confirmed by Eouth 3 ) that 
the correct reading is iQv&v instead of yjpov&v. The canon 
threatens equally diviners and those who consult them and 
summon them to their houses to prepare magical remedies and 
perform expiations. 

CAN. 25. 

os rt9 Kopyv Trpocre^OdpTj rfj dSe\(^>fj avrrfi, ox? 
avrrjV eyrjfAe Se ir]V /wrjaTTjv f^era ravra } rj Se 



1 Van Espen, I.e. p. 120. 2 In Bev. i. 399. 

3 Eouth, Rdiq. sacr. iii. 449. 



222 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



<f>0apei(Ta aTT^y^aro ol avve&oTe? e/ceXevo-d^a-av ev 



et? TOI? crwecrTcora? Kara TOU9 



" A certain person, who had betrothed himself to a girl, had 
connection with her sister, so that she became pregnant : he 
then married his betrothed, and his sister-in-law hanged her 
self. It was determined that all his accomplices should be ad 
mitted among the sistentes (i.e. to the fourth degree of penance), 
after passing through the appointed degrees for ten years." 

The Council here decides, as we see, a particular case 
which was submitted to it ; and it condemned not only the 
particular offender, but all the accomplices who had assisted 
him to commit the crime, who had advised him to leave her 
he had seduced, and to marry her sister, or the like. The 
punishment inflicted was very severe, for it was only at the 
end of ten years (passed in the three first degrees of penance) 
that the offenders were admitted to the fourth degree. It is 
not stated how long they were to remain in that degree 
before admission to the communion. The Greek verb TT/DOO-- 
<f)9elpo/jLai, generally means, " to do anything to one s hurt :" 
joined to <yvvain\ or some other similar word, it has the mean 
ing we have given it. We have rendered aTrrjy^aro by 



" hanged herself ;" we ought, however, to note that 
signifies every kind of suicide. 

SEC. I 1 ?. Synod of Neoccesarea (314-325). 

According to the title which the ancient Greek MSS. give 
to the canons of the Synod of Neocaesarea in Cappadocia, 
this Synod was held a little later than that of Ancyra, but 
before that of Mcaea. 1 The names of the bishops who assisted 
at it seem to furnish a second chronological support to this 
view. They are for the most part the same as those who are 
named at the Council of Ancyra, Vitalis of Antioch at their 
head (the Libellus Synodicus reckons twenty-four of them) ; but 
neither the Greek MSS. nor Dionysius the Less have these 
names. Tillemont 2 and other writers have for this reason 

1 Cf. on this point the Essay of the Ballerini in their ed. of the works of S. 
Leo, t. iii. p. xxii. c. 4. 

2 Mcmoires, etc. vi. 86, ed. Brux. 1732, under the art. 8. Vitale. Cf. Van 
Espen, Com. I.e. p. 121 sqq. 



SYNOD OF NEOOaSSAREA. 223 

raised doubts as to the historical value of these lists, and the 
brothers Ballerini have not hesitated to disallow their authen 
ticity. It remains, however, an incontestable fact, that the 
Synod of ISTeocaesarea took place at about the same time as 
that of Ancyra, after the death of Maximin the persecutor of 
the Christians (313), and before the Synod of Nicaea (325). 
Ordinarily the same date is assigned to it as to that of 
Ancyra, 314 or 315 ; but to me it seems more probable that 
it took place several years later, because there is no longer 
any question about the lapsed. The Synod of Ancyra had 
devoted no fewer than ten canons (1-9 and 12) to this 
subject, as a persecution had then just ceased ; the Synod of 
Neocsesarea did not touch on these matters, probably because 
at the time when it assembled the lapsed had already received 
their sentence, and there were no more measures necessary to 
be taken on that subject. The Libellus Synodicus, it is true, 
states that the Synod of (JSTeo) Csesarea occupied itself with 
those who had sacrificed to the gods or abjured their religion, 
or had eaten of sacrifices offered to idols, and during the 
persecution -, 1 but the canons of the Council say not a word 
of them. It is probable that the late and very inaccurate 
Libellus Synodicus 2 confounded, on this point, the Synod of 
Neocaesarea with that of Ancyra. It has, without any 
grounds, been alleged that the canons of Neocsesarea which 
spoke of the lapsi have been destroyed. 3 

CAN. 1. 

Upecr/3uT6/)05 lav 7^/-?, T?}? ra^ew? avrov perarlOeo-Oai,, eav 
TJ /xot^eucn;, e^wQeiaOai avrbv -re\eov KOI a 



avTov et? 



" 



If a priest marry, he shall be removed from the ranks of 
the clergy ; if he commit fornication or adultery, he shall be 
excommunicated, and shall submit to penance." 

The meaning is as follows : " If a priest marry after ordi 
nation, he shall be deposed from his priestly order, and 
reduced to the communio laicalis ; if he is guilty of fornica 
tion or adultery, he must be excommunicated, and must pass 

1 In Hard. v. 1499 j Mansi, ii. 551. 2 See above, 1. 

3 Rend Ceillier, I.e. p. 722 sc[.; Migne, Diet, des Candles, ii. 54. 



224 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

through all the degrees of penance in order to regain com 
munion with the Church." We have seen above, in canon 
1 of Ancyra, that in one case deacons were allowed to marry 
after ordination, namely, when they had announced their 
intention of doing so at the time of their election. In the 
case of priests neither the Council of Ancyra nor that of 
Neocsesarea made any exception. This first canon has been 
inserted in the Corp. jur. can} 



CAN. 2. - 

Tvvrj lav ryqfJbvjTai, Svo aSeX^ot?, efaQelvOto ftixpl Qavd-rov, 
ir\r]v ev TW Qavdrtp, Sia TTJV $i\avQpu>Triav, elirevaa w? vyta- 
vaaa \vcret, TOV ydpov, efet TTJV jJLZTavoiav lav Se Te\evTijcrr) 77 
-rj ev rotouTft) 70^0 ovaa tfroi 6 avrjp, Sva-^ep^ TO> peivavrt, 



" If a woman has married two "brothers, she shall be ex 
communicated till her death; if she is in danger of death, 
and promises in case of recovery to break off this illegitimate 
union, she may, as an act of mercy, be admitted to penance. 
If the woman or husband die in this union, the penance for 
the survivor will be very strict." 

This is a question of marriage of the first degree of affinity, 
which is still forbidden by the present law. The canon 
punishes such marriages with absolute excommunication; so 
that he who had entered into such should not obtain com 
munion even in articulo mortis, unless he promised in case of 
recovery to break this union. This promise being given, he 
can be admitted to penance (efet rrjv ^Tavoiav). Zonaras 
thus correctly explains these words : " In this case he shall 
receive the holy communion in articulo mortis, provided he 
promises that, if he recovers, he will submit to penance. * 
Canon 6 of Ancyra was explained in the same way. 

CAN. 3. 

Ilepl TMV irKeiffTOis <ya/JLois TrepiTriTTTovTWV 6 fiev ^povo 
a-afrv 6 copio-^evo^, f) Se avacrrpotyr) Kal 77 TriVm avruv avv- 

ivei TOV ^povov. 

"As for those who have been often married, the duration 

i C. 9, dist. 28. 



SYNOD OF NEOOESAEEA. 225 

of their penance is well known ; but their good conduct and 
faith may shorten that period." 

As the Greek commentators have remarked/ this canon 
speaks of those who have been married more than twice. It 
is not known what were the ancient ordinances of penitence 
which the Synod here refers to. In later times, bigamists 
were condemned to one year s penance, and trigamists from 
two to five years. S. Basil places the trigamists for three 
years among the audientes, then for some time among the 
consistentes? Gratian has inserted this third canon of ISTeo- 
csesarea in the c. 8, causa 31, qusest. 1, in connection with 
canon 7 of the same Synod. 

CAN. 4. 

Eav TTpoOrjrai Tt9 Tn6vfJiria-ai (eVi^v/^o-a?) ryvvaiKos avy- 
* avrrjs (avrfj^ fjur) e\6rj e et<? epyov avrov 97 
, fyaiverat, on VTTO TT}? ^apiro^ eppvaOrj. 
" If a man who burns with love for a woman proposes to 
live with her, but does not perform his intention, it is to be 
believed that he was restrained by grace." 

Instead of eTnOv^ricrai, we must read, with Beveridge and 
Bouth, 3 who rely upon several MSS., eiriOvfi^a-a^. They also 
replace /xer avrfjs by avrf}. The meaning of this canon is, 
that " he who has sinned only in thought must not undergo a 
public penance." 

CAN. 5. 

, eav etcrep^o^e^o? 6t? (TO) KVpWLKOV ev 777 TWV 
et a-rrjicr), QVTOS &e ($>avfy a^apravcov, eav p^ev 
yovv K\lv(t)v } aKpodcrOo) ^KeTi afJbapTavw Eav 8e /cal aKpoca- 
/*eyo9 eri, afiapravr), e^coOelaOa). 

" If a catechumen, after being introduced into the Church, 
and admitted into the ranks of the catechumens, acts as a 
sinner, he must, if he is genuflectens (i.e. to say, in the second 
degree of penance), become audiens (the lowest degree), until 

1 In Bevereg. I.e. i. 404. 

2 Basil, ad Ampliil. can. 4, Opp. ed. Bened. iii. 271 sq. Cf. below, canon 7 
of this Synod, and the nineteenth of Ancyra. 

3 Bev. Synod, i. 404 ; Eouth, Eel. Sac. iii. 465. 

4 Cf. Van Espen, Comment, I.e. p. 124 ; and Fleury, Hist. Eccl. t. ii. 
x. sec. 17. 



226 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

he sins no more. If, after being audiens, he continues to sin, 
he shall be entirely excluded from the Church." 

Kouth, 1 on good critical grounds, recommends the introduc 
tion into the text of TO and $avr). The form err^tcy and the 
verb aTT^rca), to stand up, do not occur in classical Greek, but 
are often found in the New Testament, e.g. in S. Mark xi. 25, 
and are formed from the regular perfect ecrr^Ara. 2 Hardouin 
thinks the canon has in view the carnal sins of catechumens ; 
and d/jiaprrj^a has elsewhere this meaning, e.g. in canons 2, 9, 
and 14 of Mcsea. 3 

: CAN. 6. 

Tlepl Kvofyopovcrrjs, on Bel (&mecr$a otrore ftovKercu, ovSev 
<yap ev TOVTW Koivwvel TJ TiKTOvcra TCO Tt/cro/za co, Sia TO ejcaarov 
ISiav TTJV Trpoaipecriv rrjv eirl rfj 6/Ao\oyla Sel/cvvaOai,. 

"A woman with child may be illuminated (i.e. baptized) 
whenever she demands it ; for she who bears has nothing 
on this account in common with him who is borne, since each 
party must profess his own willingness (to be baptized) by his 
confession of faith." 

Some thought that when a woman with child is baptized, 
the grace of the sacrament is given to the fruit of her womb, 
and so to baptize this child again after its birth is in a 
manner to administer a second baptism ; and they concluded 
that they ought not to baptize a pregnant woman, but that 
they must wait till her delivery. 

- ... CAN. 7. - .- 

Upea-fivrepov et9 yd/Aovs ${,<yajAovi>Tu>v (BvyafAovvTOs) prj ecrrL- 
acrOai, eirel (jLeravoiav airovvros rov SvyapAV, r/9 ecrrai 6 irpecr- 
fivTepos, 6 Bl& T?}? ecmacrect)? o-vjfcararL6e/jiei>o<f rot? lya^ot? ; 

"JSTo priest shall eat at the marriage feast of those who 
are married for the second time ; for if such a bigamist should 
(afterwards) ask leave to do penance, how stands the priest 
who, by his presence at the feast, had given his approval to 
the marriage ? }: 

We have already seen by canon 3, that in the East that 
successive bigamy (bigamia successive^) which is here in ques- 

1 Ediq. sacr. iii. 466. 2 Walil. Clavls N. T. s.v. 

3 Hard. i. 283, n. 



SYNOD OF NEOC^ESAKEA. 227 

tion, as Beveridge thinks/ and not bigamy properly so called, 
was punished in the East by a year s penance. The meaning 
of the canon is as follows : " If the bigamist, after contracting 
his second marriage, comes to the priest to be told the punish 
ment he has to undergo, how stands the priest himself, who 
for the sake of the feast has become his accomplice in the 

offence ? " 

CAN. 8. 

Tvvi] Tfi/o? fjio^evdelaa \CLIKOV 6Wo?, eav e\ej^0fj cfravepws, 
o TotoOro? et? vTrrjpecrlav e\6elv ov Bvvarai eav Be KOI fiera TTJV 
yeiporoviav ^oi^evOrj, 6$e/\a a7ro\varat, aM)V eav Be <rv%y t ov 
BvvaTai, lyeaQai TTJS 0y%ipur0eiaifs avTw VTTTJ peer las. 

" If the wife of a layman has been unfaithful to her husband, 
and she is convicted of the sin, her (innocent) husband cannot 
be admitted to the service of the Church ; but if she has vio 
lated the law of marriage after her husband s ordination, he 
must leave her. If, in spite of this, he continues to live with 
her, he must resign the sacred functions which have been 
entrusted to him." 

The Corp. JUT. can. has adopted this canon. 2 The reason 
for this ordinance evidently consists in this, that through the 
close connection between a man and his wife, a husband is 
dishonoured by an adulterous wife, and a dishonoured man 
cannot become an ecclesiastic. The Pastor of Hernias 3 had 
already shown that a husband must leave his adulterous wife. 4 

CAN. 9. 



eav TrporjfJiapT rjKa)? craynzTt Trpoa^df) KOI 
7770-77 ort, -rjfxapre Trpo rij? f )(eipOTOvias ) /AT) Trpocrfapera), fJLevwv ev 
TO?? Ao7T065 Sia T^V a\\rjv (T7rov^Y]V ra yap \onra 
e(j>a(rav ol 7ro\\oi /cal rrjv ^eipodeaiav afyikvav eav Be avros 

f), e\&y)(0i]vai Be <f>avepcios fj^rj BwyOf], eir avra) eKelvq> 

e^ovalav. 

"A. priest who has committed a carnal sin before being 
ordained, and who of his own accord confesses that he has 

1 Cf. Eouth, I.e. p. 469, and Van Espen, I.e. p. 124. 2 C. 11, dist. 34. 

3 Lib. ii. mand. 4. See Hefele s Apost. Fathers, 3d ed. p. 353. 

4 Cf. also the sixty-fifth canon of Elvira, which treats of the adulterous wife 
of an ecclesiastic. 



228 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

sinned "before ordination, must not offer the holy sacrifice ; 
but he may continue his other functions if he is zealous, for 
many think that other sins (except that of incontinence) were 
blotted out by his ordination as priest. But if he does not 
confess it, and he cannot clearly be convicted, it shall be in 
his own power to act (as he will, i.e. to offer the sacrifice, or to 
refrain from offering)." 

Cf. can. 22 of the Council in Trullo, and can. 1, causa 15, 
qusest. 8, in the Corp. jur. can. 

CAN. 10. 

Ofjiotcos Kal Sia/covos, eav ev TOJ avrdp d/jLapT^fian irepiTrecrr), 
rrjv rov vTTTjperov rdfyv e^erco. 

" In the same way, the deacon who has committed the same 
sin must only have the office of an inferior minister." 

The preposition ev before TW aurw is struck out by Eouth, 1 
on the authority of several MSS. By ministri (vTrriperai) are 
meant the inferior officers of the Church the so-called minor 
orders, often including the sub-deacons. 2 This canon, com 
pletely distorted by false translations (of the Prisca and Isi 
dore), was made into one canon with the preceding in the Corp. 
jur. can. 3 

CAN. 11. 

UpecrjBvTepos TTpo TWV TpictKovra er&v fJirj %6ipOTOvetcr0a), eav 
/cal irdvv fj o av6pu>7ro<$ ato?, a\\a aTroT^pelcrOco 6 <yap Kvpios 
Xptcrro? ev TW TpiaKocrTw era e^coTiadr] /cal ijp^aro 



^ " ]STo one is to be ordained priest before he is thirty years 
old. Even although he be in every respect worthy, he must 
wait ; for our Lord Jesus Christ, when thirty years old, was 
baptized, and began (at that age) to teach." 

We know that, in the primitive Church, <om eo-&w, to be 
illuminated, means to be baptized. We find this canon in the 
Corp. jur. can. 41 

CAN. 12. 

Eav voao)v Ti? (frcDTicrOf), et? irpeaftvrepov ayeaOai, ov Svvarai, 



1 Rellq. sacr. iii. 472. 

2 Cf. can. 2 of Aries, above, p. 185; and Suicer, Thes. s.v. v 

C. 1, causa 15, 4. 8. 4 C. 4, disk 78. 



SYNOD OF NEOC7ESAREA. 229 

OVK 6/c Trpoaipeo-ea)? yap r) Trwra? avrov, a\\* ef azwy/e???, 
el fjirj Taya $ia TTJV fjiera ravra avTOv GTrovSyv /cal Trlariv teal 
St,a cnrdviv avOpamwv. 

" If a man is baptized when he is ill, he cannot be ordained 
priest ; for it was not spontaneously, but of necessity (through 
fear of death), that he made profession of the faith unless, 
perhaps, he has displayed great zeal and faith, or if the supply 
of candidates fails." 

All commentators, except Aubespine, 1 say that this canon, 
which was received into the Corp. JUT. can., 2 speaks of those 
who, by their own fault, have deferred the reception of bap 
tism till their deathbed. Aubespine thinks that it refers to 
catechumens who have not received baptism earlier through no 
fault of their own, but who, finding themselves smitten by a 
severe sickness, are baptized before the usual time, i.e. before 
receiving all the necessary instruction. It was, he added, on 
account of this want of instruction that they were forbidden 
to enter the priesthood if they regained their health. But the 
forty-seventh canon of Laodicea tells us that in the primitive 
Church it was the duty of such catechumens to receive instruc 
tion even after baptism, and this alone overthrows Aubespine s 
conjecture. 3 

CAN. 13. 

ETTi^fjopioi irpeorflvrepoi, ev TOJ Kvpiarcq) T^? TroXew? jrpocrcfre- 
peiv ov ^vvavrai Trapovros ITTMTKOTTOV rj Trpeo-flvrepcov TroXew?, ovre 
aprov SiSovai, ev eu^i} ovSe TTOTrjpiov eav $e asir&cri teal 



" Country priests must not offer the holy sacrifice in the town 
church (the cathedral) when the bishop or the town priests 
are present : nor must they either distribute, with prayer, 
the bread and the chalice. But if the bishop and his priests 
are absent, and if the country priest be invited to celebrate, 
he may administer holy communion." 

Instead of K\t]0rj ^,01/09, the old Latin translators of the canons, 
Dionysius the Less and Isidore, read K^Q^ui, JJLQVOI ; that is to 



1 In Routh, Eellq. sacr. iii. 473; and Van Espen, Comm. I.e. p. 126. 

2 C. 1, dist. 57. 

3 Cf. Van Espen, Comm. I.e. p. 126; Herbst, Tubing. Quartalsckrift, 1821, 
S. 445 f. ; Routh, I.e. p. 473 sq. 



230 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

say, " If they are asked, then only can they administer the 
Lord s Supper ; " and Eouth recommends this reading. This 
canon is contained in the Corp. jur. can. 1 

> - CAN. 14. 

01 Se ^wpeTTLcrKOTroi, elal fj,ev ei9 TVTTOV rwv 
&>9 Se (rv\\LTOvpjol Sia rrjv cnrovtyv (TT)I>) et? rou? 
Trpocr^epovcri, TL^^VQI. 

" The clwrepiscopi represent the seventy disciples of Christ ; 
and, as fellow-workers, on account of their zeal for the poor, 
they have the honour of offering the sacrifice." 

A function is here assigned to the cliorepiscopi which is 
denied to country priests, namely, the offering of the holy 
sacrifice in the cathedral, in the presence of the bishop and the 
town priests. On the chorepiscopi, compare c. 13 of Ancyra, 
and our remarks below on canon 57 of Laodicea. Many MSS. 
and editions have canons 13 and 14 in one. 

CAN. 15. 
CTTTCL 6<j)el\ovcrw elvai Kara TOV Kavova, KCLV TTCLVV 



airo 



" In even the largest towns there must be, according to the 
rule, no more than seven deacons. This may be proved from 
the Acts of the Apostles." 

This canon was given in the Corp. jur. can. 2 

1 C. 12, dist. 95. 2 C. 12, dist. 93. 



BOOK II. 



THE FIKST (ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF 

A.D. 325. 



CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY. 1 

SEC, 18. The Doctrine, of the Logos prior to Arianism. 

FEOM the beginning, two points concerning the Logos and 
His relation to the Father have stood as divinely re 
vealed in the consciousness of the Church. On the one hand, 
His real divinity and equality with the Father ; on the other, 
His personal distinction from the Father. But before the 
Council of Nicsea this sure doctrine of the faith had not been 
set forth in a sufficiently definite or positive manner. Whilst 
some of the ancient Fathers, in expounding the faith of the 
Church, had, without thoroughly mastering the formula of 
Mcsea, perfectly understood and taught its meaning, others 
selected less happy expressions, and sometimes erroneous ones 
-such as would, in their consequences, even lead to heresy. 
These same Fathers have, in different portions of their writings, 
expressed themselves sometimes with theological accuracy, 
sometimes with less accuracy. Thus, for example, S. Irenseus, 
Clement of Alexandria, S. Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neocsesarea, 2 

1 Compare Hefele s treatise on the origin and character of Arianism, in the 
Tiibing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1851, Heft 2. 

2 On the indecision in the expressions of Gregory, cf. H. Hitter, Geschichte d. 
christl. Philosophic, Bd. ii. S. 14. 

231 



232 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and Methodius, 1 did not always choose their expressions care 
fully, but in substance they incontestably maintained the true 
doctrine. It is the same with Justin, Athenagoras, and Theo- 
philus, who expressed themselves irreproachably on the chief 
dogmatic points, but differ in some of their inferences from 
the rule of the Church. The Apologists, above all others, to 
make themselves more acceptable and intelligible to the heathen 
who were accustomed to the Platonic philosophy, made a less 
clear and exact declaration of the doctrine of the Logos. In 
this endeavour they have too often brought the Christian idea 
of the Logos near to that of Plato and Philo, and so have too 
often degraded the Son in His dignity and power, attributed a 
beginning to His existence, and consequently have not recog 
nised His equality with the Father (thus, among the orthodox 
Fathers, Athenagoras and Theophilus ; among the more hetero 
dox, Tatian, Tertullian, and especially Origen), and have empha 
sized too much the personal distinction between the Father 
and the Son. 

On the other hand, they also tried to establish the second 
point of the traditional doctrine, the true divinity of the Son, and 
His equality with the Father, by declaring that the Logos was 
not a creature, and by saying that He came from the substance 
of the Father, and not from nothing, as the creatures do. 2 They 
sometimes deny that the Logos was subsequent to the Father 
in His existence, which they affirm in other places. Attaching 
themselves to the distinction established by Philo between the 
At/yo? ev$idOeTo<$ and TrpofopLKos, several of the ancient Fathers, 
philosophizing on the Son of God in the sense of the Logos 
irpofyopiKos (that is, as He is personally distinct from the 
Father), speak of this Logos as of a being subordinate, and 
having an existence subsequent in time to that of the Father. 
In other places, on the contrary, they seem to suppress the 
distinction, purely nominal, between ev^idOero^ and TrpotyopiKos, 
and include the Logos completely in the divine substance. 3 
These last passages correct all that is exaggerated in the 

1 Of. Eitter, I.e. S. 4 ff. 

2 Petavius, de theolog. dogmat. de Trinltat. prcef. c. 1, 12, 13, c. 3, 3 sqq., 
and lib. i. 3. 1 ; i. 5. 7 ; i. 8. 2 ; Kuhn in the Tubing. Quart. 1850, S. 256 ff. 

3 Kulm, I.e. S. 274 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS PRIOR TO AR1ANISM. 23 



o 



others, and positively support the ancient Fathers on the solid 
basis of the Church. 1 

In certain cases, the two principal points of the doctrine of 
the Logos the unity of the Son with the Father, and the dis 
tinction between the Father and the Son have been regarded 
as contradictory propositions ; and instead of preserving each 

1 The stability and permanence of the doctrine of the Church on the one side, 
and the uncertainty of several of the Fathers in expressing the doctrine of the 
Logos on the other, were pointed out long ago by S. Augustine (on Ps. liv. (Iv. ), 
n. 22) and S. Jerome (adv. libr. Rufin. ii. 440, ed. Migne). S. Augustine says : 
Numquid perfecte de Trinitate disputatum est, antequam oblatrarent Ariani ? 
S. Jerome writes : Certe antequam in Alexandria quasi dcemonium meridianum 
Arius nasceretur, innocenter qucedam et minus caute locuti sunt. This uncer 
tainty of the Fathers has been pointed out with still greater force by our great 
historian of dogma, Petavius. The Anglican Bull, however, regarded the free 
and scientific historical treatment of the subject by the Jesuit as an injury done 
to high church orthodoxy, and endeavoured, with great expenditure of learning, 
to demonstrate the indemonstrable, namely, that all the ante-Nicene Fathers 
held the Nicene faith exactly and precisely. In more recent times, Dr. Baur of 
Tubingen (Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, i. 110) has objected to Petavius, to the 
extent of accusing him of going beyond the Catholic point of view, an accusa 
tion which has been refuted in the treatise of Kuhn, already quoted, "the 
Vindication of Dionysius Petavius, and the Catholic Conception of the His 
tory of Dogma. " 

In direct opposition to Bull, writers with a Unitarian bias, like Sandius and 
others, endeavour to show that all or most of the cmfe-Nicene Fathers were also 
anti- Nicen.e ; in other words, that before the Nicene Synod there prevailed an 
entirely different doctrine of the Trinity, whether related on the one hand to 
Sabellianism, or on the other to Arianism. 

Petavius, as we see, forms the mean between those two extremes, and with 

him agree those later Catholic theologians who have examined the ancient doctrine 

of the Logos, particularly Prudentius Maran (Dlmnitas Domini nostri J. Christi 

manifesta in Scripturis et Traditione, Paris 1746, fol. ; and laDiwnitd de noire 

Seigneur, etc., Paris 1751) and Mohler (Athanasius, i. 116, 56). These writers, 

while they admit the uncertainty and indefiniteness, or even the inaccuracy, of 

many of the ancient Fathers with reference to the doctrine of the Logos, at the 

same time maintain the firm hold which the Church always had on the substance 

of the faith on those two fundamental parts of the doctrine of the Logos (the 

proper Godhead of the Son, and the personal distinction between Him and the 

Father). In doing so, they at the same time separate themselves entirely from 

that idea of the history of dogma in general, and of the development, of the dogma 

of the Logos in particular, which has been put forth by Hegel and Baur. For 

while this new Protestant school asserts that dogma has always been produced 

by the antagonism of opposite views, and thereby destroys the whole of the solid 

substance of dogma, the Catholic historian distinguishes a permanent element 

and a changeable : the former being the substance of the faith itself; the latter 

the perception, comprehension, and representation of this firm substance of 

faith, 



234 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

in its theological entirety and relation to the other, they have 
thought to annihilate the one by the other. Out of this arose 
Sabellianism. This heresy, while maintaining the proper God 
head of the Son, in order the better to establish His equality 
with the Father, destroyed the personal distinction between 
the Father and the Son. But as one extreme leads to another, 
Sabellianism necessarily produced Subordinationism as its 
natural reaction ; i.e. the theory which, in endeavouring to pre 
serve the personal distinction between the Father and the Son, 
like Emanationism, subordinates in glory and in dignity Him 
who is begotten that is to say, the Son to Him who is 
unbegotten, and thus approximates Him more or less to the 
creatures. The celebrated Dionysius the Great, 1 Bishop of 
Alexandria, is the most remarkable in this contest. About the 
year 2 60, in his dogmatic letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, 2 
as is well known, he expressed himself very indefinitely ; and 
in order to mark more forcibly the distinction between the 
Father and the Son, he spoke of the latter as a ITOLTI^CL rou 
Seov. He added, "that the Son in substance is alien from 
the Father (t;evov KCLT ovaiav), as the vine plant and the vine 
dresser are distinct one from the other in substance ; " and 
" as He is a jroirjfia, He could not have been before He w r as 
made (OVK rjv, Trplv y&qrtu)" Thus in words, though not by 
intention, Dionysius had placed the Son on a par with the 
creatures. His excuse is found in the uncertain and vacillating 
language of his time, even apart from his well-intended opposi 
tion to Sabellianism, since other orthodox writers also describe 
the derivation of the Son from the Father promiscuously by 
such expressions as Troielv, <yevvav, ryeveo-Qcu, condere, and generare. 
Pope Dionysius and his Synod were more clearsighted than 
these theologians. When several African bishops complained 
to him of the errors of Dionysius of Alexandria, the Pope held 
a Synod about the year 260; and after having deliberated 
with the members of the Synod on the dogma in question, he 
addressed to his colleague in Alexandria, and probably at the 
same time to other bishops of Egypt and Libya, a letter very 

1 On the doctrine of Dionysius of Alex., cf. Natal. Alex. Hist. JEccl. t. iv. 
diss. xvii. p. 131 sqq., and Eitter, I.e. S. 14 ff. 

2 In Athanas. de sententia Dionysii, c. 4. 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS PRIOR TO ARIANISM. 235 

remarkable in the history of the true faith, the greater part 
of which has been preserved for us by S. Athanasius. 1 In it 
he protests against three errors : first, against the tritheistic, 
" which, diametrically opposed to Sabellius, divides the divine 
monarchy into three separate powers or hypostases, and plainly 
teaches that there are three Gods." Baur supposed that the 
accusers of Dionysius of Alexandria had supported the doc 
trine of tritheisrn. 2 Dorner, on the other hand, believes that 
tritheism was the result of a mixture of Sabellianism and 
Marcionitism ; 3 but he has not proved that this amalgamation 
existed during that period. Secondly, the Pope condemned, 
briefly and casually, Sabellianism; and, thirdly and lastly, he 
spoke at some length against those who called the Son a crea 
ture, when Holy Scripture declares that He was begotten. 
" Had He been created," said he, " there would have been a 
period when He did not exist. Now the Son has always 
existed (ael rjv)" The Pope then explains critically those pas 
sages in the Bible 4 which seemingly speak of a creation of the 
Son ; and against these he brings forward those 5 which speak 
of His generation and of His eternity. He closes with these 
words : " The admirable and holy unity (of God) cannot in 
consequence be divided into three Godheads ; and the dignity 
and incomparable greatness of the Lord ought not to be lowered 
by the expression creature being applied to Him. It is neces 
sary to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus 
Christ His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and that the Logos is 
united to the God of the universe." The Bishop of Eome 
here clearly professes the doctrine of Nicsea ; and that Dionysius 
the Great of Alexandria also professed it, is proved by two 
letters which he then sent to Eome to justify himself, and 
which S. Athanasius quoted in order to prove that the Arians 
had done wrong in numbering Dionysius as one of their 
party. Dionysius says, in his letters, 6 that his accusers had 

1 De decretis Synodi NIC. c. 26. Cf. de sent. Dionys. c. 13. 

2 Baur, Christ. Lelire v. d. Dreieiniglceit, Bd. i. S. 313. 

3 Dorner, Lelire v. d. Person Christi, 2d ed. Thl. i. S. 750 [Clark s translation, 
A. ii. 176 ff.]. 

* Prov. viii. 22 ; Dent, xxxii. 6. 

5 Col. i. 15; Ps. cix. (ex.) 3 ; Prov. viii. 25. 

5 In Athanas. de decretis Niccence Synodi, c. 25, and de sententia Dlonys. c. 18. 



236 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

falsely charged him with, denying the equality of the substance 
of the Father and the Son ; and if he had said that nowhere 
in the Bible the word OJJLQOVO-LOS could be found, the argument 
of which he made use, and which his adversaries had passed 
over in silence, was in complete agreement with that expres 
sion. He had, indeed, compared the relation between God the 
Father and God the Son with those between parents and 
children, as children are of the same substance as their 
parents. He had also employed other analogous arguments, 
e.g. the example of the plant and its root or its seed, between 
which there was an evident identity of substance. To the 
same effect was his comparison of the river and its source. 
He says, in another part of his letter of justification : l " There 
has never been a moment when God was not the Father ; and 
the Son is eternal ; but He has His being, not of Himself, 
but of the Father." Also in a third place 2 he declares " he 
does not believe the Logos is a creature, and that he has not 
called God Creator (TTO^T^, but Father, to express the rela 
tion that Pie has to the Son. If, however, in the course of 
his speech (and without intending it) he has once called the 
Father -TTO^T?)? to express His relation to the Son, he may be 
excused, seeing that the learned Greeks call themselves also 
TrotTjral, as being fathers of their works, and that the Bible 
itself does not always employ the word in the sense of creator, 
but sometimes also in the sense of originator : for instance, 
when it says we are the iroLTjral of the movements of our 
hearts." 

After Dionysius the Great, the most illustrious doctors of 
the Church of Alexandria, Theognostus, Pierius, and Bishop 
Peter, professed also the orthodox doctrine of the Logos., 
The first of these, who was chief of the catechetical school of 
this town from 270 to about 280, states explicitly, in a frag 
ment preserved by S. Athanasius : 3 " The substance of the Son 
came not from without, neither was it produced from nothing : 
it proceeds from the substance of the Father, as brilliancy 
proceeds from light, vapour from water." If in a fragment of 

1 In Atlianas. de sentent. c. 15. 

2 I.e. c. 21. 

3 De decretis Syn. Nic. c. 25. 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS PRIOR TO ARIANISM. 237 



Theognostus, preserved by Photius, the Son is called a 
Photius 1 presumes this expression comes from a questioner ; as 
the work from which it is taken is a dialogue : anyhoAV, the 
formal declaration quoted above proves that he could not have 
used the word /moya in an Arian sense. 2 His successor, the 
priest Pierius, professes the same doctrine of the Logos. Photius 
says of him : 3 " It is true he called the Father and the Son 
two substances (overlap instead of persons or hypostases ; but, 
however, he spoke of the two evo-e/3w$, that is, in an orthodox 
manner." And this testimony of Photius is the more convinc 
ing to us, from the decided manner in which he blames Pierius 
in another passage on account of his doctrine of the Holy 
Ghost : 4 if his teaching on the Logos had not been orthodox, 
Photius would have blamed him for this too. 

The third great Alexandrian of that time was Bishop Peter ; 
and although the fragment attributed to him in the CJironicon 
Paschale is probably not genuine, two other fragments 5 prove 
that he attributed to the Son the same nature and Godhead 
as to the Father. 

It was different at Antioch, where the efforts to uphold the 
unity of God degenerated into the doctrine of Paul of Samo- 
sata, who considered the Logos as impersonal, and not distinct 
from the Father, and saw in Christ only a man in whom the 
divine Logos had dwelt and operated. A fellow-countryman 
of Paul s, who shared his sentiments, Lucian, priest of Antioch, 
defended for some time this heretical doctrine of the Trinity, 
and for that reason was excomnumicated for a time. 6 Later, 
however, he acquired great distinction, by the publication of 
a corrected copy of the Septuagint, and by the firmness with 
which he suffered martyrdom under Maximin. 7 The restora 
tion of Lucian to the Church proves that eventually he re 
nounced the doctrine of Paul of Samosata ; but being still 
convinced that the Church did not maintain with sufficient 
firmness the dogma of the unity of God, he imagined another 

1 Cod. 106. 2 cf. Dorner, I.e. S. 737 f. 

3 Cod. 119. 4 Cfj Dorner, I.e. S. 733 f. 

5 In Angelo Mai, Nova collectio, etc., vii. 306, 307 ; and Galland. Bibliotli. 
vet. Patrum, i. 108. Cf. Dorner, I.e. S. 810. 

6 Theodoret, Hist. Ecd. i. 4, p. 15, ed. Mogunt. 

7 Euseb. H. E. viii. 13, ix. 6. 



238 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

hypothesis of the Trinity, which is nou perfectly known to 
us for lack of sufficient information, but which, according to 
Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, came out in the heresy of the 
Exucontians, and more particularly in that of his disciple 
Anus. 1 Arius himself traced his doctrine to the school of 
Lucian, in greeting his friend Eusebius of Mcomedia, who 
shared his opinion, with the name of Sv\\ovKiavio-rri$ (fellow- 
Lucianist). This being the case, it is of little importance to 
decide whether Arius was personally a disciple of Lucian at 
Antioch, or whether his opinion was formed from his writings 
only. In the letter from Arius to Eusebius of Mcomedia, 
just quoted, one sees that the principles of Lucian were widely 
spread in Asia ; for Arius not only speaks of Eusebius as. 
sharing his opinions, but also of a great many other bishops 
of Asia, who had all proclaimed that the Son was not eternal 
equally with the Father. The denial of the co-eternity of the 
Father and the Son seems therefore to have been a funda 
mental point in the doctrine of Lucian. 2 

Besides, S. Epiphanius says : 3 " Lucian and his followers all 
denied that the Son of God had taken a human soul, attri 
buting to Him only a human body, for the sake of endowing 
the Logos with human feelings, such as sorrow, joy, and the 
like ; and they also declared Him a being inferior to God a 
creature, in fact." Arius and his partisans made great use of 
the crw/m Xpiarov atyv^ov, and thereby again revealed their 
affinity with the school of Lucian. We know also that Lucian 
was. looked upon as the author of the creed that the Euse- 
bians (that is, the friends of Arius) submitted to the Synod of 
Antioch in 341, in which, as we shall see, the teaching was 

1 In Theodoret, H. E. i. 4, p. 15. 

2 In opposition to the testimonies here adduced, Baronius endeavours (ad ann. 
311, n. 12 ; and 318, n. 75) to clear Lucian of the imputation of heresy ; but 
even he is forced to concede that Lucian made use oi inaccurate expressions in 
the controversy with the Sabellians, particularly with his fellow-priest Pancra- 
tius of Antioch, and that therefore he was excommunicated by three successive 
"bishops of Antioch. Yet Baronius believes that Lucian, whom he defends on 
account of his martyrdom, was always orthodox in heart, and that the Arians 
had no right to appeal to him ; and that even Alexander, the Bishop of Alex 
andria, was mistaken when, in the letter quoted above, he brought Arianism 
into connection with Lucian. Cf. Dorner, I.e. S. 802, note. 

3 Ancoratus, c. 33. 



ARIUS. 239 

not positively heretical, but in which, all sharp precision of 
dogma is intentionally avoided. 1 

SEC. 19. Arius. 

The Subordinationist theology of Antioch was transplanted 
to Alexandria by Arius, the oft-named disciple of the school 
of Lucian ; and on this new ground it gained strength and 
importance. The mind of Arius was disposed to this purely 
rationalistic theology ; and from his point of view of mere 
natural intelligence, it became impossible for him to reconcile 
theoretically these two apparently contradictory dogmas of the 
equality of the Logos with the Father, and of His distinction 
from Him. " Arius," says Dorner with justice, 2 " takes part 
with pleasure and skill in the relative sphere : he handles the 
lower categories of logic with dialectic skill ; but he never 
rises above it : he applies it to everything. He is quite in 
capable of rising to speculative science, properly so called." 
But he would certainly not have created so much disturbance 
in the minds of the people, had he not found in Alexandria 
a field well prepared to receive this theory of subordination, 
even so far back as the time of Origen. A certain hos 
tility had been created against the theology of equality (the 
doctrine of the equality of the Son with the Father), which 
was taught by Theognostus, Pierius, and Bishop Peter, and 
now anew by Bishop Alexander. The representatives of the 
old Alexandrian tendency naturally linked themselves with 
pleasure to Arius ; and thus it was that in later times the 
Arians earnestly appealed to the authority of Origen, and 
protected themselves under his name, and pretended to pro 
ceed directly from him. Athanasius carefully refuted this. 3 
Besides, the Church of Alexandria was a specially prepared 
soil for this new growth : she had been for more than a cen 
tury the philosophizing Church of Christianity 



1 It is given by Athanasius, De synodis Arimini et Seleucice, c. 23, and 
Socrates, H. E. ii. 10, but without mention of Lucian. We learn from Sozo- 
men, H. E. iii. 5, that the Arians attributed it to him. 

2 J.c. S. 823. 

3 Cf. Wolf on the relation of Origenism to Arianism, in the Zeitschnft fur 
luther. Theologie, 1842, Heft iii. S. 23 ff. ; and Earners, Die Auferstehungs- 
lehre des Origenes, 1851, S. 6, 10. 



240 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



She readily threw herself into all philosophi 
cal and theological controversies. Being in close proximity to 
the native country of Sabellianism, she felt constantly called 
upon to combat it, and so was led imperceptibly into the 
other extreme. Arius himself was Libyan by birth, conse 
quently a compatriot of Sabellins j 1 thus he might have con 
sidered himself specially called on to combat the Sabellian 
theory, which annihilated all distinction between the Father 
and the Son. Philonism, of which Alexandria was the hot 
bed, seems also to have exercised some influence over the 
development of Arianism ; 2 and as the following details will 
prove, Arius built on the base of this philosophy. Thus, 

(a.) Like Philo, he exaggerated the distinction between the 
world and God, and considered the supreme God much too 
sublime to enter into direct relation with the world, and the 
world much too low to bear any direct action of God. Now 
Athanasius proves 3 that Arius, and his friends Eusebius and 
Asterius, had appropriated to themselves this fundamental 
proposition of Philo s philosophy. 

(/&) Like Philo, Arius admitted an intermediate being, who. 
being less than God, was the divine organ of the creation of 
the world (like the created gods of Plato) : this intermediate 
being was the Logos. Thus the Arian Logos resembled that 
of Philo : they are each declared inferior to the Father ; and 
Philo, who in general considered him. as personal, gives to him 
the name of vTr^perr)^ Qeov. 

(7.) Now the intermediate and inferior being could not be 
equal in substance and equal in eternity (consubstantial and 
co-eternal) with the supreme and only true God. It may 
thus be seen how all the other Subordinationist predicates of 
the Logos arise of themselves from the fundamental proposi 
tions of Philo. 

Arius completely failed to perceive the contradiction which 
springs from the adoption of an intermediate being. Accord- 

1 So Epiphanius asserts, Hceres, 69. 1 ; whilst Cave and others, supported by 
Photius, pronounce him to have been an Alexandrian. 

2 Stapdenmaier has remarked most powerfully and clearly on this connection, 
in his Philos. des Christ, i. 506 ff. 

3 Oratio ii. Contra Arianos, e. 24.. 



ARIUS. 241 

ing to his view, the supreme God could not create anything 
imperfect; yet He makes the Son imperfect. If God can 
create only perfect beings, it becomes necessary that the 
plenitude of perfection, and consequently of divinity, be found 
in the Son ; if not, the supreme God could create imperfect 
beings : thus He could equally have created the world. 1 

The analogy between the intermediate being of the Arians 
and the Gnostic Demiurge is evident, but the difference which 
existed between the two must not be overlooked. They re 
semble each other, inasmuch as neither can produce perfect 
beings. But whilst the Gnostic Demiurge only presides over 
a period of the world s existence, the Arian Logos does not 
cease to act as long as the world exists. 2 The age of the 
Emperor Constantino was undeniably very favourable for the 
rise and rapid propagation of the doctrine of Subordination ; 
for after the conversion of the Emperor, many learned heathens 
entered the Church without a real vocation, and there spread 
on all sides religious theories much more favourable 3 to half- 
pagan Subordinationism than to the profoundly Christian doc 
trine of the equality of the Father and of the Son. 

We know but little of the life of Arius before he set forth 
his errors, and what is known of him is not very certain. 4 
He embraced at Alexandria the side of the Meletians at first, 5 
but afterwards abandoned it, and was ordained deacon by 
Peter Bishop of Alexandria. At a later period, having taken 

1 Eitter, I.e. S. 25. 2 Hitter, I.e. S. 28 f. Mohler, i. 191. 

4 The history of the life of Arius is found most completely in the Storia critica 
della vita di Arrio, scritta da Gaetano Maria Travasa, Cler. Reg. Teatino 
(Yenezia 1746), and in Tillemont, M gmoires pour servir a I histoire eccle siastique, 
t. vi. The other works of most importance on the subject of Arianism are: 
Maimbnrg, S. J., Histoire de I Arianisme (Paris 1675) ; the biographies and 
monographs on Athanasius ; Christian "Walch, Ketzergeschichte (1764), Bd. ii. 
S. 385 ff. ; J. A. Stark, Versuch einer Geschichte des Arianismus (Berlin 17S3), 
2 Theile (of no great value) ; Wundemann, Geschichte der christliclien Glaubens- 
Icliren von Zeitalter des Athanasius bis auf Greg. d. Gr. (Leipzig 1798), 2 Thle. 
8vo ; "Wetzer, Restitutio verce chronologice rerum ex controversiis Arianorum 
exortarum (Francof. 1827) ; Lange, Der Arianismus in seiner ursprunglichen 
Bedeutung, in llgen s Zeitsch. f. hist. Theol. iv. 2, v. 1 ; Baur, Die christliche 
Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, etc. (1841), Bd. i. S. 320 ff. ; Dorner, Die Lehre 
von der Person Christi (1845), Thl. i. S. 806 ff. 

5 On the Meletians, cf. the author s essay in the Kirclienlex. Bd. vii. 
S. 37 ff. 

Q 



242 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the side of the Meletians, he was excommunicated "by Bishop 
Peter; but his successor Achillas (A.D. 312) reconciled him to 
the Church, and ordained him priest. 1 Soon after, Arius was 
put at the head of a Church called Baucalis, as the large 
number of Christians in Alexandria had rendered necessary 
the division of the town into districts, corresponding with 
what are now called parishes. 

Arius was tall and thin ; a learned man and a clever logi 
cian ; of austere appearance and serious bearing, and yet of 
very fascinating manners ; at the same time proud, ambitious, 
insincere, and cunning. 2 Epiphanius 3 calls him a perfidious 
serpent. Bishop Alexander reproaches him with his avarice, 
and speaks of his following composed of women, in such a way 
that later historians believed wrongfully, no doubt that 
disgraceful inferences might be drawn against his private life. 
Two statements by Theodoret, 4 on the ambition and arro 
gance of Arius, have led to the belief that, after the death 
of Achillas (towards the end of 312), Arius strove for the 
Episcopal dignity; but seeing his old colleague Alexander 5 
preferred to him, he conceived a deep hatred against him. 
The Arian historian Philostorgius, 6 on the contrary, asserts 
that Arius himself made over to Alexander the votes which 
were offered to himself. Neither of these assertions seems 
to have been true. Theodoret 7 is nearer the truth when 
he says, that in the beginning Alexander highly esteemed 
Arius. Chronology confirms this statement ; for the discus 
sion between Arius and his bishop did not, as it would seem, 

1 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. i. 15. The false Acta S. Petrl relate that "both Bp. 
Peter and Achillas were expressly warned by Christ in a vision respecting Arius. 
Cf. Baronius, ad ann. 310, n. 4 ; and Renandot, Hist. Pat. Alex. p. 67. 

2 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. 5, ii. 35 ; Epiphanius, Hceres. 69. 3. The Emperor 
Constantine depicts him in the darkest colours, in a letter to Arius him sell and 
to his adherents, in Gelasius Cyzicenus, Hist. Condi. Nicceni, lib. iii. ; in 
Mansi, ii. 930 sqq., particularly p. 938 ; and Hardouin, i. 452 



4 Hist. Eccl. i. 4. Cf. Walch, KetzerJi. Thl. ii. S. 404 f. 

5 See Gelasius, I.e. lib. ii. c. 1 ; Mansi, I.e. p. 791 ; Hard. i. 366. 

6 Lib. i. c. 3 of the fragments of Philostorgius at the end of Valesius ed. of 
tke Ch. Hist, of Theodoret. 

7 i. 15. 



ARIUS. 243 

take place until 318 or 320, 1 when Alexander had been 
Bishop of Alexandria for more than six years, and until then 
apparently the most profound good feeling had existed be 
tween Arius and him. But whilst admitting that a certain 
antipathy existed between them, it must not therefore be 
concluded that it gave rise to the doctrinal controversy : this 
was simply the result of different theological convictions. 
Socrates 2 thus relates the manner in which this difference first 
arose : " Bishop Alexander of Alexandria one day spoke, in 
presence of his priests and clergy, of the mystery of the 
Trinity, and insisted especially on the Unity in the Trinity, 
philosophizing on this grave subject, and thinking he was 
gaining honour by his argument. But Arius, who was eager 
for dispute, professed to discover Sabellianism in the bishop s 
doctrine. He opposed it vehemently, and asserted that if 
the Father had begotten the Son, he who was begotten had 
a beginning of his being (dpxn v u7rape&)$), and consequently 
there was a time when he could not have been (rjv } ore ov/c 
that it also followed that the Son had his beginning from 



nothing (e f OVK ovrcov e^et Trjv v 

All history posterior to Arianism proves that Arius was 
unjust in accusing his bishop of Sabellianism ; but that which 
chiefly proves it is the conduct of Alexander at the Council 
of JSTicsea, and likewise his letters and those of Arius, which 
we shall soon have occasion to examine. 

Arius admitted, with the orthodox Fathers, that the term 
" begotten" was the palladium which could alone save the 
doctrine of the personal existence of the Son against Sabel 
lianism. He therefore took the idea of " begotten" as the 
groundwork of his argument ; but he transferred the idea of 
time, which rules every human generation, to the divine gene 
ration, and drew from that, as he thought, with logical neces 
sity, the proposition that the Son could not be co-eternal with 
the Father. He did not, however, wish to speak of a priority 

1 Cf. "Walch, I.e. S. 423. The supposition that the Arian question came up 
at the Synod of Aries in 314, rests simply upon an error in canon 8, where 
Arianis is written by mistake for Afris. See above, p. 189. Cf. Mansi, ii. 
472 ; and Ittig, Hist. Condi. Nicceni (Lips. 1712), 22. 

2 Hist. Eccl. i. 5. 



244 HISTORY or THE COUNCILS. 

in time, properly so called, but only of priority similar to a 
priority in time, of the Father to the Son ; for, according to 
Arius, time began with the creation, and thus the Son, by 
whom all things were created, and who, consequently, was 
before the creation, was born also before all time. Other 
theologians had, before Arius, already developed this argu 
ment ; but he afterwards went beyond it, and thought that the 
distinction he had established between the Father and the 
Son would fade away if he admitted that the Son is begotten 
of the substance of the Father. This fear has apparently 
been justified by the history of the word- " consubstantial" 
(opoovaios) ; for this word, as we have already seen, 1 was 
rejected by the Synod of Antioch, held in 269. But Arius 
not only avoided this definite expression, but all others similar 
to it used by the holy Fathers to show that the Son emanated 
from the substance of the Father. He not only rejected the 
expression, but the thing expressed, by positively declaring 
that he was made el- OVK QVTWV, which was diametrically 
opposed to the o/^ooucrto?, and thus went further than any one 
else among the ancients. He positively made the Logos a 
" creature" in the special sense of the word. 

Arius had another motive for not admitting that the Son 
was begotten of the substance of the Father. He believed 
that by so doing the divine substance would be divided, whilst 
God is essentially indivisible ; and, in point of fact, the Arians 
constantly reproached their adversaries with considering the 
divine substance as something corporeal, and dividing it. They 
believed that their doctrine of the Logos alone maintained, not 
only the indivisibility and immateriality of God, but likewise 
His immutability. The creation of temporal things would, 
according to them, have wrought a change in the Creator ; for 
if the supreme God had made the world, He would have lost 
His immutability, which is contrary to the idea we have of 
God. On the contrary, there was no danger in denying the 
immutability of the Son, as being declared to be a creature 
who took part in the creation of the world. They said, then, 
" By nature the Son is not unchangeable, but only by His own 
will." 2 

1 P. 123. 2 Cf. Athanas. contra Arlan. c. 35; and Hitter, I.e. S. 23 ft*. 



ARIUS. 245 

Arms first appeared on the scene with these opinions be 
tween 318 and 320. This date, though uncertain, has every 
appearance of probability. 1 Sozomen, Theodoret, and Epi- 
phanius relate, as did Socrates, with slight differences of detail 
only, the beginning of the Arian controversy. 2 Socrates does 
not say that Bishop Alexander gave rise to the discussion by 
a sermon ; according to him, it was Arms who began of him 
self to spread his errors. The bishop was blamed for tolerat 
ing the beginning of it. He did not, however, wish to use his 
authority against Arius : he preferred to call together his 
clergy, and made them argue in his presence with Arius ; and 
they proclaimed the Son 0/^00^0-409 and avval &ios (consubstan- 
tial and co-eternal with the Father). In the beginning of the 
discussion Alexander did not take either side ; but towards 
the end he approved of those who had defended the consub- 
stantiality and co-eternity of the Son, and commanded Arius 
to retract his error. Epiphanius maintains, but it is difficult 
to admit the assertion, that the chief adversary and opposer of 
Arius was Bishop Meletius, the chief of the schismatics, of 
whom we have already spoken. Arius was little disposed to 
submit to the orders of his bishop ; on the contrary, he sent 
to several bishops a written confession of faith, and bested 

JL f OO 

them, if they approved of it, to send him their adhesion, and 
to intercede with Bishop Alexander in his favour. 3 In a 
short time he made many friends, especially the celebrated 
Eusebius of Mcomedia, 4 who, being then bishop in the house 
hold of Constantine and his sister Constantia, exercised great 
influence over them, and over many of the other bishops. 
He interested himself actively with them on behalf of Arius, 
and sent him his adhesion in writing. 5 He, like Arius, was a 
disciple of Lucian, and accepted in general the propositions of 
Arianism. 

" One only," he thought, " the Father, is unbegotten ; the 
other (the Son) is truly (that is to say, in the full sense of 

1 Cf. Walch, I.e. S. 417 ff. 

2 Sozom. Hist. Ecd. i. 15 ; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 2; Epiplian. Hares. 
69. 3. 

3 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl i. 15. * Socrat. Hist. Eccl. J. 6. 
5 Atlianas. De Synodis Arimin. et Sdeucice, c. 17. 



246 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the word) created, and not of the substance of the Father 
(QVK IK T?}? overlap avrov <yeyovct)<i). The Son does not parti 
cipate in the substance (ova-la) of the unbegotten ; He differs 
from Him in nature and in power, although He was created 
in perfect resemblance to the nature and power of His Creator. 
No one can express in words His beginning, or even under 
stand it in thought." 1 The letter to Bishop Paulinus of Tyre> 
in which Eusebius expresses these opinions, is at the same 
time a proof of the zeal he displayed in favour of Arius and 
his cause ; for he reproaches this bishop with not having 
declared in favour of Arius, although at heart he shared his 
opinions. He exhorts him to repair his fault, and above all 
to write (as he no doubt had already done himself) to Bishop 
Alexander, and set forth the true doctrine, namely, that of 
Subordination. He proposed Eusebius of Caesarea to him. as a 
model, the celebrated church historian, who, without being a de 
cided Arian, was visibly in favour of this party. Besides these 
two, Eusebius and Paulinus of Tyre, there were the bishops, 
Theodotus of Laodicea, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of 
Berytus, and JEtius of Lydda. (or Diospolis), who interested 
themselves in favour of Arius. 2 Very shortly others showed 
themselves on the same side : among the most remarkable 
were the two Africans, Secundus Bishop of Ptolemais in 
Libya, and Theonas of Marmarica, both of whom belonged to- 
the province of Alexandria, and openly took part with Arius. 
Besides, from the Alexandrian and Mareotic clergy, ther.e were 
added to the heretical party the two priests Chares and 
Pistus, and the thirteen following deacons, Achillas, Euzoius, 
Aithalas, Lucius, Sarmates, Julius, Menas, Helladius, Serapion, 
Paramnon, Zosimus, Irenseus, and a second Arius. Among 
them also are named Carponas and Eusebius, without men 
tion of the order to which they belonged. These names are 
given by Bishop Alexander himself in three lists, made at 
different times, for which reason they do not all agree. 3 Epi- 

1 In a letter of Eusebius to S. Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 6). 
It is, however, not certain whether this letter was written at the beginning of 
the Arian movement or at a later period. 

2 Theod. Hist. Eccl. i. 5. 

3 Theod. Hist. Eccl. i. 4; Soc. Hist. Eccl i. 6; and Athan. Dap. Aril, i. 
ed. Patav. 



SYNOD OF ALEXANDRIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 247 

phanius, on tlie contrary, speaks of seven priests, twelve 
deacons, and seven hundred virgins consecrated to God (Egypt 
had a great many such) who took part with Arius. 1 It is pro 
bable that, in so grave a matter, Alexander early consulted 
with other bishops ; at least this may be concluded from some 
passages contained in a letter which he wrote later, and which 
is found in Theodoret. 2 But it is also certain that at the 
beginning Alexander endeavoured to keep the matter as quiet 
and peaceable as possible ; and that, in connection with his 
clergy, he addressed remonstrances not only by word, but in 
writing, to Arius and his partisans. 3 

SEC. 20. TJie Synod of Alexandria in 320, and its 

Consequences. 

Bishop Alexander, seeing the uselessness of his efforts, in 
320 or 32 1 4 convoked a large ecclesiastical assembly in 
Alexandria, at which were present nearly a hundred Egyptian 
and Libyan bishops. The matter of their deliberations has 
not reached us ; we only know that Arius and his partisans 
were anathematized. 5 His partisans, said Alexander in two 
letters, 6 were the two bishops Theonas and Secundus, and the 
majority of the deacons recently named. Arius wished to 
prove that Eusebius of Csesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, 
Paulinus of Tyre, and, in one word, the greater number of 
the bishops in Asia, were condemned with him by the Synod 
of Alexandria; but that was a false inference. 7 It is 
likely that the Synod, after having excommunicated by name 

1 Epiph. Hceres. 69. 3. 2 Hist. Eccl. i. 4. Cf. Walch, I.e. ii. 428, n. 2. 

3 See the two letters of Alexander in Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 6 ; and Atlianas. 
Deposltio Aril, I.e. 

4 So reckons Walch, I.e. Thl. ii. S. 421, from the expression of S. Athanasius, 
that the Avians had been declared heretics thirty-six years ago. Athanasius 
wrote this letter (Ep. ad Episc. jEgypti, c. 22) in the year 356, and therefore 
indicates the year 320. But it is not a settled point that Athanasius wrote the 
letter in question in 356, for he says in it that the Meletians had fallen into 
schism fifty-five years before. As, however, we know that this took place in 
306, it would seem that Athanasius wrote this letter in 361 ; and then, in say 
ing that the Arians had been declared heretics thirty-six years before, he must 
have had in his eye, not the Alexandrian Synod of 320, but the Nicene Council 
of 325. Cf. AValch, Ketzerhist. Bd. iv. S. 381, Anm. 2. 

5 Socrat. H. E. i. 6. 6 Socrat. I.e.; and Theodor. I.e. i. 4. 
? In his letter to Eusebius of Mcomedia, in Theod. i. 5. 



248 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the African Arians, and especially those of Alexandria, pro 
nounced a general anathema against the partisans of this 
heresy; and from this Anus drew the conclusions which 
suited him. 1 

Although excommunicated, Arius continued to hold con 
gregations for divine service ; and Bishop Alexander speaks 
of several churches (which he designates as dens of thieves) 
where the Arians habitually met, and offered night and day 
outrages against Christ, and against the bishop. 2 He men 
tions, in the same letter, how they sought in different towns 
to attract adherents by their lectures and writings, and espe 
cially sought to deceive women by their flatteries and false 
hoods. They went so far, says he, that they stirred up 
against the orthodox the populace and the civil authorities 
(still principally heathen, for Egypt depended on Licinius), 
and endeavoured, when all was peace, to excite a new perse 
cution. 3 Alexander saw himself obliged, by the insolence 

and constant machinations of the Arians, as well as bv the 

<y 

open partisanship of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to inform all the 
bishops of the position of affairs in elaborate letters. For the 
same purpose he convoked a new assembly of the Alexandrian 
and Mareotic clergy, and asked all the united clergy (among 
them Athanasius, then a deacon) to sign his Epistola encyclical 
After a very fine introduction on the unity of the Church, 

1 Cf. Walch, I.e. ii. 431. 

2 In Theodoret, H. E. i. 4. These outrages consisted in this, that they de 
graded the Logos to a creature, and, as usual, accused the bishop of Sabel- 
lianism. From this time Arius altered, for the use of his followers in divine 
service, the ordinary doxology into " Glory be to the Father, through the Son, 
in the Holy Ghost" (Theod. lib. iv. de hceret. fab. c. 1). It is true that 
orthodox Fathers have made use of this doxology (e.g. Leo the Great, Sermo 
i. denativit. Dom.}, as being equally susceptible of an orthodox interpretation. 
Cf. Ittig, Hist. Con. Nic. 51. 

3 According to Epiphanius (PIcer. 69. 8), the Arians had already selected a 
bishop of their own for Alexandria, of the name of Pistus ; but this could 
not have happened so early ; for () the Arians still hoped at that time for 
a reconciliation with Bishop Alexander (Theod. I.e. i. 6 ; Sozom. i. 15. Cf. 
the remark of Petavius on Epiph. Hcer. 69. 8). Besides, () Athanasius says 
expressly (Apol. contr. Arian. c. 24) that Pistus was not ordained bishop until 
after the Nlcene Council. 

4 This remarkable document is found in Athanas. Epistola synodalis, etc. T. 
i. 1, p. 313, ed. Patav. 1777 ; t. i. p. 397, ed. Paris 1698 : in Socrat. H. KLQ; 



SYNOD OF ALEXANDRIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 249 

Alexander especially complained of Eusebius of Mcomedia, 
who had undertaken to protect the heresy, and who recom 
mended Arius and his partisans everywhere by his writings 
and letters. This conduct obliged him to speak openly. He 
afterwards enumerated the names of the apostates, and ex 
posed their chief errors, which were the following : 

1. " God was not always Father ; there was a time when 
He w T as not Father (rjv, ore 6 @eo? Trarrjp OVK TJV). 

2. " The Logos of God has not always been (OVK ael TJV) ; 
He was created from nothing ; God, the self-existent, created 
from nothing Him who is not self-existent (the &v @eo? 

the fJLT) OVTCL). 

3. " Consequently there was a time when He was not ; for 

4. " The Son is a creature, a KTIO-^CL and a Trot^/m. 

5. " He is not of the same substance as the Father (ovre 
ft/mows /car ovalav) ; He is not truly and according to His nature 
the Word and the Wisdom of God (ovre a\7]6ivo^ KOI cfrvcret, 
rov Trarpos \6yo$ ecrrlv, ovre a\r)6ivrj cro<pia avrov ecrrtz/) ; but 
one of the works, and of the creatures of God (efc r&v 

TCOV /cal yevrjrcov). He is only by an abuse 
called the Logos ; He was created by the true Logos (t/w rov 
Seov \6ycai), and by the inner (eV T eai) Wisdom of God 
(the ^0709 eVSta^ero? of Philo). 

" It is by this inner Wisdom (\oyos eVoia^ero?) that God 
created Him (the ^0705 Trpofopifcbs) and all things. 

6. "Thus it is that by nature He is subject to change 
(rpeTTTo?, that is to say, by nature liable to sin). 

7. " He is a stranger to the divine ovaia, and differs from 
it (few? re Kal aX\or/)i09). He does not know God perfectly ; 
He does not even know His OWTL nature perfectly. 1 

8. " He was created for us, so that God might create us by 
Him as His instrument ; and He would not have existed (OVK 

and in Gelasius Cyzic. in Hard. i. 366 sq. ; Mansi, ii. 793 ; most perfectly in 
Athanasius. Epiplianius relates (H ceres. 69. 4) that Alexander sent seventy 
letters of this kind into the different provinces ; and we learn from Pope 
Liberius, that even Silvester, who was then Pope, received such a letter from 
Alexander (Constant. Epist. Pontif. p. 426). 

L This is quite consistent, for the knowledge of the creature in its essence 
can be derived only from the knowledge of its foundation or Creator. Patter, 
Geschichte der Christ. Phil. Bd. ii. S. 27. 



250 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

av vTrea-rrf), had He not been called into existence by God 
through love for us." 

Bishop Alexander afterwards refutes these Arian doctrines 
by texts from the Holy Scriptures; 1 and at the end he im 
plores the bishops not to admit the Arians into the communion 
of the Church, and to have no confidence in Eusebius and 
others like him. 

Theodoret 2 has preserved a second letter of Alexander s 
(and of his Synod), addressed, according to the title given by 
Theodoret, to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. But not 
only is this title wanting in three ancient manuscripts ; but 
besides, at the time the letter was written, the name Constan 
tinople did not exist. Moreover, this letter was not addressed 
to one, but to several bishops, as the contents prove. It is 
said in the letter, that Arius and his friend Achillas went 
further than Colluthus had done, who had previously founded 
a sect in Alexandria. 3 Even Colluthus at this time blamed 
the conduct of the Arians, who did not submit to the Church, 
who held meetings in their dens of robbers, denied the God 
head of our Saviour, misinterpreted those texts of Scripture 
for their own purpose which speak of the humiliation of 
Christ, which was for our salvation, and endeavoured to stir 
the people up against the orthodox, and to excite persecutions 
against them by calumnious pamphlets written by disorderly 
women. After having been for these several causes excluded 
from the Church, the Arians endeavoured by falsehoods, and by 



1 Arius had endeavoured to prove his doctrine by separate passages of Scrip 
ture, particularly by those which set forward the human side of Christ, and 
which speak of His ignorance of anything, of His pain, of His subordination to 
the Father, of His TKx-<tvc*tris, etc. Arius was forced to apply all these passages 
falsely to the divine in Christ, the x<? y 5 - ; for, according to his opinion, the 
Xa ya was not united to a complete humanity, but only to a human body. Cf. 
above, p. 238 ; and Neander, Kirchengeschichte, 2 AufL, Bd. iv. S. 690. [An 
English translation of ISTeander s Church History is published by Clark of Edin 
burgh.] Arius in this resembles his opponent Apollinaris. It is clear that 
Arius, in adducing these Scripture proofs, clung to the mere letter : he always 
regarded only separate detached passages, and not the whole doctrinal idea of a 
biblical author. Cf. Neander, Kircheng. 2 AufL, Bd. iv. S. 685. 

2 Hist. Ecd. i. 4. 

3 See more particularly, with reference to him, in Epiphanius, Hceres. 69. 2, 
and the note of Petavius upon that passage ; also in Philastrius, de hceresibus* 
c. 78. Cf. also Ittig, Hist. Condi Nic. 1712, 18. 



SYNOD OF ALEXANDRIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 251 



concealing their errors/ to bring other bishops over to their 
side, and many of them had succeeded in being admitted into 
the communion of the Church. Consequently it became 
necessary to unveil without delay their errors, which consisted 
in maintaining : 

" That there was a period when the Son of God did not 

exist ; 

" That, not existing at first, He was later called into exist 
ence; 

" That He was created out of nothing, like everything else, 
reasonable or unreasonable, and consequently was by nature 
liable to change, capable of goodness and of sin ; 

" But that God, knowing that He (the Son) would not deny 
Him, chose Him above all created beings, although by nature 
He had no higher claim than the other sons of God, that is, 
than other virtuous men. If Peter and Paul had sought to 
reach the same perfection as Christ, their relation to God 
would have been absolutely the same as that in which Christ 
stood." 

Then Bishop Alexander again refuted the Arians by texts 
of Scripture : he compared them to the Ebionites, to Artemas 
and Paul of Samosata ; he called them Exucontians (ol e OVK 
OVTWV), a title which in later times was frequently employed ; he 
complained that three Syrian bishops urged the Arians to still 
grayer excesses ; then returned afresh to biblical proof against 
the Arians, and developed the orthodox faith, saying that the 
Son was not subject to any change, and is in all things like 
the Father, perfect as He is perfect, and in one point only 
subordinate to the Father in not being unbegotten. In other 
respects the Son is the exact image of the Father. He is 
from all eternity ; but from this it must not be concluded, as 
the Arians have wrongfully done, and as they falsely accuse 
those who are orthodox of doing, that the Son was not be 
gotten : for those two terms, " Being from all eternity," and 
" not begotten," are not identical ; there is a difference between 
them. The Son, being in all things the image of the Father, 
should be worshipped as God. The Christian recognises also, 
with the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost, who worked in 

1 Cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. 



252 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the holy men of the Old Testament, and on the holy teachers 
of the New. 

Bishop Alexander continued to set forth the other articles 
of the faith, and employed the term which became celebrated 
later in Christian controversy, the " Mother of God " (Oeo-roKos). 
In conclusion, he exhorted the bishops to admit no Arian into 
the communion of the Church, and to act as did the bishops 
of Egypt, Libya, Asia, Syria, etc., who had sent him written 
declarations against Arianism, and signed his TO/XO?, that is to 
say, his treatise (perhaps the encyclical letter of which we 
have already spoken). He hopes they will send him similar 
declarations, as perhaps the number of the bishops might con 
vert the Arians. He adds in the appendix the names of the 
ecclesiastics of Alexandria who were excommunicated alons 

o 

with Arius. 1 

t 

SEC. 21. Arius obliged to leave Alexandria ; Ms Letters and 

his Thalia. 

Driven from Alexandria by his bishop, 2 Arius went first to 
Palestine, and from thence addressed a letter to his powerful 
protector, Eusebius of Nicomedia. In it he complains of the 
persecution which he had to suffer at the hands of Alexander, 
particularly of being driven from the town ; and accuses Alex 
ander of maintaining " that the Father and the Son co-existed 
always together, that the Son was not begotten, that He was 
begotten from all eternity, that He was unbegotten Begotten, 
that the Father was not one moment anterior to the Son, and 
that He is of God Himself." (It may be seen how Arius 
misrepresents some of the doctrinal propositions of Alexander, 
as we have already found, 4 because he could not reconcile the 
eternity of the Son with His divine generation.) Further, 
Arius asserts that Eusebius of Csesarea, Theodotus of Laoclicea, 
Paulinus of Tyre, etc., and all the Eastern bishops, were 
anathematized by Alexander 5 because they taught that the, 

1 Tlieodoret, Hist. Ecd. i. 4. This letter is also printed in Mansi, ii. 642 
sqq. Binius lias added some notes ; see Mansi, I.e. 659. 

2 Epiphan. Ilceres. 69. 3 ; Theodoret, Hist. Ecd. i. 5. 

3 Arian inferences. Cf. Dorner, I.e. 813, note 22. 

4 P. 251. 5 See above, p. 246. 



AKIUS OBLIGED TO LEAVE ALEXANDRIA, 253 

Father existed before the Son. Only three Eastern bishops 
were not excommunicated, he adds : these are Philogonius, 
Hellanicus, and Macarius, because they have in an impious 
manner called the Son, the one an eructation of the Father 
(epvyrj, according to the forty-fourth 1 Psalm, ver. 2), the other 
a projection (TT/QO/SOXTJ), the third co-begotten (crvvayevwrjTov ). 
Arius could not, he said, admit such impiety, 2 even if the here 
tics threatened him a thousand times with death. As to the 
Arians, he says, they teach " that the Son is not unbegotten, 
and that He is not a part of the Unbegotten (with reference to 
the sense in which o^oovaios was rejected at Antigen 3 ); that 
He was not created of anything which existed before Him ; 
but that He was called into being by the will and according 
to the plan (of God), before time and before the world (that 
is to say, He was before the world was made, but that He was 
not eternal), and as full God (77X77/3779 609), only-begotten 
(fjiovoyevijs), and unchangeable (avaXkoiwro^. Before being be 
gotten, or created, or determined, or founded, He was not ; for 
He is not unbegotten." He concludes by being remembered to 
Eusebius, who, like himself, belonged to the school of Lucian. 1 
The exposition Arius here makes of his doctrine agrees per 
fectly, one point excepted, with that which was given a little 
further back by the Bishop of Alexandria. Alexander, in 
fact, says in his two letters, that Arius made of the Son " a 
being who, according to His nature, was capable of virtue or 
of sin." Arius seems to say the contrary in that which pre 
cedes this ; but this difference is only in appearance. Arius, 
to be consistent, should have said : " The Son being a Krlo-fia, 
and not of the substance of the Father, is by nature subject 
to change, as are all the Kria-^ara" But he might also, and 
he did actually, affirm that " clc facto the Son was immutable, 
but that His immutability was the effect of volition, and not 
by nature." Arius, in like manner, takes the expression 
0eo9 in a double sense. He cannot and will not say 



1 Ps. xlv. E. Y. 

2 We see from this, as Neander points out, I.e. S. 701, the violent intolerance 
of the Arians, and the persecuting spirit which they afterwards displayed so 
greatly. 

3 See p. 124. 4 See this letter in Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 5. 



254 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

that the Son is by nature equal in glory to the Father ; he 
says that He is perfect God only by the will of the Father, 
that is to say, that the Father has made Him partaker of His 
divine glory. 1 A careful analysis of the principal work of 
Arius, called the Thalia, will show, besides, how well-founded 
was the accusation made by Bishop Alexander, that Arius had 
here concealed his real sentiments. 

Invited, in consequence of this letter, by Eusebius, Arius 
went a short time after to Nicomedia, and wrote from thence, 
perhaps at the instigation of Eusebius, a polite letter to his 
former bishop Alexander, in order to be on as good terms as 
possible with him. First, he sets forth in his letter a kind 
of creed which should explain the faith, as Arius and his 
friends had received it from their predecessors, and even from 
the Bishop Alexander himself, as follows : 

1. "There is only one true God, alone uncreate, alone 
eternal, alone without beginning, alone wise, good, and power 
ful ; one only Judge and King, and alone unchangeable. 

2. " Before all time He begot His only Son, arid by Him 
created the world and all things. 

3. " He did not only beget Him in appearance " (Arius 
believed in the eternal generation as being only in appearance, 
and imputed all real generation to time), " but He actually 
called Him into existence by His own will, as an unchange 
able and immutable being. 2 

1 It is remarked with perfect accuracy by Neander, I.e. S. 691 : "Although 
this idea of Christ (held by Arius) is in contradiction to the true faith of His 
Godhead, Arius did not hesitate to assign to Him the name of God, which he 
found given to Him in the New Testament and in the ancient creeds. . . . He 
probably based his practice upon those passages of the Bible in which the name 
of God appears to be assigned in an improper sense to created beings. " Also S. 
696, Anm. 1 : "Arius could not logically apply such an expression as vrxjpns 
>io; to Christ ; but in an indefinite sense, as he employed the name of God, he 
was able to do so. "What was most difficult from his point of view was to 
attribute moral immutability to Him ; but this, too, depended upon the mean 
ing attached to it. He was obliged to explain it in this way, that He was 
unchangeable, not by nature, but by virtue of the direction of His will, foreseen 
by God." 

2 We have explained above (p. 253) in what ssnse Arius understood the expres 
sions unchangeable, etc. Mohler (Athanasius, i. 205) reproaches Arius further 
with equivocation in applying the words " by His own will" (r$ //* /Sat/x^a*) 
not merely to the Father, but also to the Son, so that he says, "The Son is 



THE LETTERS OF ARIUS. 255 



4. "The Son is a perfect creature of God (/m 0y*a rov 
)eov TeXeiov), but yet distinct from all other creatures ; He 
is begotten, yet again He differs from all that is begotten. 

5. "He is not, as is asserted by Valentinus, a projection 
(irpopoXrj), nor yet, as the Manichseans assert, a substantial 
part of the Father (juepo? o/noovcriov rov Trarpos) ; * nor, as 
the Sabellians wish, the Son-Father ; 2 nor, as is said by 
Hieracas, light of light, or one torch emanating from another ; 
nor had He a previous existence, and was afterwards be 
gotten and made the Son, a thing which Bishop Alexander 
himself " (whom Arius still addresses as /Jia/cdpie irdira) " had 
often publicly controverted, and with reason. 

6. " He was created by the will of God before time, and 
before all worlds. He has received His life and His being 
from the Father, who also has communicated His glory to 
Him ; and without taking from Himself, has given Him the 
heritage of all things. 

7. " There are three persons : God, who is the cause of all 
things, who is unique, and without beginning ; the Son, who 
is begotten of the Father before all things, created and estab 
lished before the worlds. He was not until He was begotten ; 
but He was begotten before all time, before all things, and 
He alone was called by the Father (immediately) into being. 3 
He is not, however, eternal or unbegotten, like the Father. 
He had not His being at the same time as the Father, as 
some say, who thus introduce two unbegotten principles ; but 
as God is the monad and the beginning, or the principle of 
all things, He is therefore "before all things, and consequently 
also before the Son, as Bishop Alexander himself has declared 
in the Church. 

unchangeable by His own will." But I can hardly believe that this reproach, 
of Mohler s is well-founded ; for in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theo- 
doret, i. 5) Arius expresses himself in much the same way, but still so as to 
show that it was undoubtedly the will of the Father, and not that of the Son, 
which he intended (XA. on ^X ^KTI / /3t/A.>j L^riffr /i <ffpo %povaiv KKI vrpo ttlutmv 
v^ripns 0soj). Cf. the translation of this passage, above, p. 253. Even Mohler 
has in his translation referred the words in question to the Father. 

1 The Jesus patibilis of the Manichseans is a substantial part of the Jesus 
apatibilis. 

2 i.e. that there is no personal distinction. 

* i.e. everything else was made through the Son. 



256 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

8. " The Son having received His being from God, who 
gave Him glory, life, and all things, so God must be His 
principle (apX 1 ?)) an( ^ must rule Him (ap^ei, CLVTOV) as His 
God, and as being before Him. 

9. "In conclusion, it is attempted to show that the 
biblical expressions, the Son is of the Father, ex utero, etc., 1 
do not refer to similarity of substance." 2 

During his stay in Mcomedia, Arius wrote his principal 
work, called QaXeia, that is, " The Banquet." Only fragments 
of it remain. They are preserved in the works of S. Atha- 
nasius. 3 The book, it appears, was partly in prose and partly 
in verse. The ancients compared it to the songs of the 
Egyptian poet Sotades, and pronounced it highly effeminate 
and overwrought. According to Athanasius, 4 there were 
some of these " Thalias" already among the heathen, which 

V *- f * 

were read at their banquets for the promotion of gaiety. 
Arius selected this light form, it seems, to familiarize the 
masses with the doctrine taught in his book. With the same 
intention he afterwards wrote songs for sailors, carpenters, 
and travellers. 5 Athanasius says 6 the Thalia was held in 
great honour by the friends of Arius, and that they venerated 
it as a second Bible. In reality, it contains Arianism in its 
strongest form, and at the same time shows clearly its Philo- 



1 Ps. ex. 3 ; S. John xvi. 28 ; Rom. xi. 36. 

2 This letter of Arius is found in Athanasius, de synodls Arlmln., etc., c. 16 ; 
Epiph. Hceres. 69. 7 ; in German, in Euchs, Bibliotliek der Kirclienversamml. 
Thl. ii. S. 450 if. In Epiphanius this letter is signed not only by Arius, but 
also by fourteen of his friends. Their names are given above, p. 246. Against 
the genuineness of these signatures, we have (1) the fact that Ethales (i.e. 
Aithalos), Achillas, the second Arius, and others, who, as we have seen, are 
called deacons by Bishop Alexander, appear here as priests. (2) Pistus signs 
as Bishop of Alexandria, which, as we showed before, is contrary to all proba 
bility. (3) Besides Pistus, several others sign as bishops, and yet the title of 
the letter says it is signed only by priests and deacons. (4) Finally, it is doubt 
ful whether all these friends could have been at Nicornedia at the same time 
with Arius. 

3 Athanas. Oratio i. contra Arianos, c. 5, 6, 10; de synodis Arimin., etc., n. 
15. This writing is mentioned also by Athanas. de decretis synodi Nicama?, 
c. 16 ; Epist. ad Episc. Egypti et Libyce, c. 7, 20 ; de sententia Uionysii, c. G ; 
Oratio i. c. Arian. c. 2, 4, 7, 9, 10 ; Socrat. H. E. i. 9 ; Sozomen, II. E. i. 21. 

4 Orat. i. c. Arian. c. 11. 5 Philostorgii Fragmenta, lib. ii. c. 2. 



THE THALIA OF ARIUS. 25*7 

nian foundation. In one of these fragments 1 Arius boasts of 
being very celebrated (wepuckurbs), having had much to suffer 
for the glory of God (that is, because he gave the Father the 
glory due to Him, as opposed to the Son) ; and he goes on : 
" God has not always been Father ; there was a moment 
when He was alone, and was not yet Father : later He be 
came so. The Son is not from eternity ; He came from 
nothing, etc. When God wished to create us, He first created 
a being which He called the Logos, Sophia, and Son, who 
should create us as an instrument. There are two Sophias : 
one is in God (i.e. eVStatfero?), by which even the Son was 
made. It is only by sharing (/tere^a) the nature of this 
inner Sophia of God that the Son was also called Wisdom 
(<ro<pia 7rpo(f)opL/co<;). So also, besides the Son, there is another 
Logos he who is in God ; and as the Son participates in 
this Logos, He also is by grace (/cara %/^) called Logos and 
Son." 

In the second fragment, 2 the Thalia sets forth that with 
which, as we have seen, Bishop Alexander had reproached 
Arius, namely, " that the Logos did not perfectly know the 
Father ; that he could not even entirely understand his own 
nature ; that the substances (ovcrlai) of .the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost are entirely different the one from the 
other. These three persons are, in their essence and glory 

(Sofa), thoroughly and infinitely dissimilar (avo^oioi ira^av 

* > if \ 

. . . e?r aireipov). 

In the third fragment 3 Arius says, after the Philonian 
manner, from the beginning : " God is apprjros (ineffable), and 
nothing (therefore not even the Son) is equal to or like Him, 
or of the same glory. This eternal God made the Son be 
fore all creatures, and adopted Him for His Son (tfvejKev elf 
vlov). . . . The Son has nothing in his own nature akin to 
God, and is not like to Him in essence. The invisible God 
is also invisible to the Son, and the Son can see Him only so 
far as is permitted by the will of the Father. The Three 
Persons of the Trinity are not equal in glory, the Hypo- 

1 In Athanas. Orat. i. c. Arian. c. 5. 

2 I.e. c. 6. 

3 Atlianas. de synod. Arimin. c. 15. 

B 



258 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

stases (Persons) are not confounded, and one is infinitely more 
glorious than the other. God could create a being like unto 
the Son, but He cannot create a being more glorious or more 
great. That which the Son is, He is through the Father and 
the mighty God (tV^y/oo9 Oeo?). He (the Son) adores Him 
who is more glorious than Himself." 

SEC. 22. Synod in Bitliynia Intervention of the Emperor 

Constantine. 

Sozomen 2 speaks of a Synod in Bithynia which supported 
the Arians by an encyclical addressed to all the bishops, asking 
them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. 
This Synod was held 3 by the partisans of Arms, probably 
during his stay in Mcomedia, and perhaps even in that town. 
The part espoused by so many bishops did not bring about 
peace in the Church : the struggle, on the contrary, became 
more intense ; and there arose so much division among Chris 
tians, and such grievous schisms in all towns, and even in the 
villages, that the heathens everywhere turned it into ridicule 
on the stage. 4 S. Athanasius shows us how much occasion 
the Arians gave to the heathens for such derision, by describing 
their proselytism, which was as improper as it was ridiculous : 
for example, how they gained women to their side by asking 
sophistical questions, such as, " Hast thou had a son before 
thou didst bear ? " in order to win them over to their opinion 
of the later origin of the Son. 5 

The political events which then arose undoubtedly increased 



1 The Greek text has, rov xptlvrovK IK pipevs vpvsT, i.e. "He praises Him who 
is in part better than Himself." But Arms said before, The Father is in 
finitely more glorious, and consequently He cannot here be designated as i 
pipw xptirruv. Perhaps it should be translated : " On His side He praises^ and 
glorifies Him who is more glorious ;" so that l pipvt=*rl p*ps. Cf. Viger, 
de idiotismis, etc., p. 109. 



2 



_ f 

3 There is in the acts of the second Synod of Nicsea (Hard. iv. 407) a letter of 
the Church historian *Eusebius to Bishop Alexander in favour of Arius, which 
belongs to the same time. Eusebius endeavours in this letter, in referring to 
Anns own letter to Alexander, to show that Alexander had given too dark a 
picture of the Arian doctrine. 

4 Theodoret, I.e. i. 6; Socrat. i. 6; Soz. i. 15. 

6 Athanas. Orat. i. c. Arian. c. 22. 



SYNOD IN BITHYNIA. 259 

the trouble in Egypt and in the East, the seat of Arianism. 
The Emperor Licinius, to whom Egypt and Asia belonged, 
after being vanquished by Constantine in 315, had concluded 
a definite peace with him ; and in consequence of this treaty 
he lived several years on the best terms with his father-in-law 
and the Christians. But towards the end of 322 Licinius 
took advantage of Constantine s crossing the frontiers of his 
empire, in pursuit of the Sarmatians, to break with him ; and 
in 323 entered into a war, which towards the autumn of the 
year ended in the total defeat of Licinius by sea and land. 
This war accounts for the increase of the confusion and divi 
sions in the Church, as well as for the lack of all authentic 
history of Arianism during this period (322-323). Another 
circumstance which may thus be explained is the boldness of 
Arius in returning to Alexandria. In his struggle against 
Constantine, Licinius became the champion of heathenism, and 
oppressed the Church, particularly the bishops. Arius had no 
further cause to fear Alexander, and the principal obstacle to 
his return was thus removed. The actual return of Arius to 
Alexandria is proved by Sozomen, and still better by a letter 
from the Emperor Constantine, of which we shall shortly 
speak. Sozomen 1 says that "Arius sent messages to the 
Bishops Paulinus of Tyre, Eusebius of Csesarea, and Patro- 
philus of Scythopolis, asking permission to officiate as formerly, 
and to do so even in Alexandria. As is understood from the 
tenor of the letter, these bishops summoned their colleagues 
to a council, and allowed Arius and his adherents to hold, 
as formerly, private religious assemblies, without, however, 
withdrawing themselves from the submission due to Bishop 
Alexander, and on the condition of asking for peace and 

53 P 

communion. 

Constantine, now master of the whole empire, consequently 
also of Egypt and the other provinces disturbed by Arianism, 
considered it his duty to re-establish religious as well as civil 
peace, and took the necessary measures as* soon as he had 
returned to Mcomedia. He sent first a Ions letter to Arius 



a i 15. 

2 Sozomen expressly places this fact in the time after the Synod of Bithynia. 
It seems to adapt itself better to the beginning of the Arian conflict. 



260 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and Bishop Alexander, 1 the purport of which Eusebius has 
preserved entire, but which Socrates only gives in fragments. 2 
He says in this letter, that " he has learnt with great sorrow 
that sharper controversies than those of Africa (the Donatist 
disputes) have arisen at Alexandria, although it appears to 
him that they are questions respecting things of no import 
ance and of no use, which Alexander ought not to have 
excited, and about which Arms ought to have kept his dif 
ferent views to himself. They were questions which the 
human mind was too weak to solve correctly ; and therefore 
both Arius and Alexander should forgive each other, and do 
that which he, their fellow-servant, advised them. He thought 
that they could easily be reconciled, as they did not disagree 
on any main point of the law, nor on any innovation in divine 
service, and were therefore substantially at one ; that philoso 
phers of the same school had often differed in accessories : we 
should be able to bear such differences, but bring them as 
little as possible before the people. That was vulgar, puerile, 
and unworthy of priests. That, therefore, they ought to agree, 
and free him from so great a cause of anxiety." 

It is evident that the Emperor was not at that time aware 
of the importance of the Arian controversy, and that his letter 
does not merit the great praise it received from Eusebius 3 and 
others. Constantine sent this letter, in the contents of which 
Eusebius of Nicomedia perhaps had a hand, to Alexandria 4 by 
the celebrated Bishop Hosius of Cordova. This venerable man, 
whom the Emperor usually consulted, was sixty-seven years of 
age. He had been a confessor during the persecution of Dio 
cletian ; and the Emperor hoped that his presence would bring 
about a reconciliation. It is uncertain what Hosius did at 
Alexandria : it is only known that he opposed Sabellianism 
there, proving the Christian doctrine of the nature and persons 
of the Holy Trinity, 5 probably to make clear the difference 
between the Sabellian and the orthodox doctrine. It is not 
known if he was present at the Synod of Alexandria, which 

1 This shows that Arius was again in Alexandria. 

2 Euseb. Vita Constantini, lib. ii. c. 64-72; Socrat. Hist. Ecd. i. 7; in Gela- 
sius, lc.; in Mansi, I.e. 802 and 946, where see Binius note. 

3 Vita Constant, ii. C3. 4 Socrat. Hist. Ecd. i. 7. 5 Ibid. iii. 7. 



SYXOD IN BITHYXIA. 261 



deposed Colluthus. 1 Perhaps this Council was held later. 
Unhappily Hosius did not succeed in his mission to Alexandria. 2 
Philostorgius relates that later he met the Bishop of Alexandria 
at a synod at Nieomedia, where he approved of the term 
ofjioovvios, and excommunicated Arms. The statement is not 
probable. 3 

However, the Emperor s letter and Hosius mission remaining 
alike without result, and the Paschal controversy continuing 
to disturb many eastern provinces (the custom of the Quarto- 
decimans existed still in Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia 4 ), the 
Emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, 5 thought there could be 
no better means to re-establish the peace of the Church than 
the calling of an oecumenical council. 

1 Athanas. Apolog. c. Arianos, c. 74. 2 Socrat. I.e. i. 8. 

3 Philostorgii Fragmenta, i. 7. Cf. Walch, I.e. S. 463. 

4 Athanas. Ep. ad Afros, c. 2. 

6 Sulpit. Sever. (Hist. ii. 55) refers to this : Nicsena synodus, auctore illo 
(Hosio) confecta habebatur. 



CHAPTER II, 

THE DISCUSSIONS AT NIC^A, 1 

SEC. 23. The Synodal Acts. 

niTE first and principal source from which we draw OUT 
JL information respecting the deliberations at Mcsea, must 
of course be the acts of the Synod. Unhappily we possess 
only three portions of them the Creed, the twenty Canons, 
and the Synodal Decree ; and the question arises, whether 
this is all which ever existed ; in other words, whether the 
separate discussions and debates at Nicsea were committed to 
writing, and subsequently lost, or whether they neglected to 
take minutes of the proceedings. Vague rumours of later 
times have reported that minutes were taken; and it is 
asserted in the preface to the Arabic edition of the Canons, 
that the acts of the Mcene Synod fill no fewer than forty 
volumes, and have been distributed throughout the whole 
world. 8 To a similar effect is that which the pseudo-Isidore 
writes, in the preface to his well-known collection. " He had 
learnt," he says, " from the Orientals, that the acts of Nicaea 
were more voluminous than the four Gospels." 3 At the Synod 
of Florence, in the fifteenth century, one of the Latin speakers 
asserted that Athanasius had asked and obtained a genuine 
copy of the acts of Nicaea from the Roman bishop Julius, 
because the Oriental copies had been corrupted by the Arians.* 

1 Cf. the author s AWiandlung ub. dieNican. Akten, in the Tub. Quart. 1851, 
S. 41 ff. 

2 In Mansi, ii. 1062 ; Hard. i. 326. 

3 Mansi, i. 8 ; Hard. i. 6 ; Baron, ad ann. 325, n. 62. 

4 Hard. ix. 235 ; Fabric. I.e. p. 579. It would seem that the Latin speaker 
had here in his eye the spurious Epistola Athanasii ad Marcum, and the answer 
to it (Opp. S. Athanas. ii. 598), and had confounded the names of Julius and 
Marcus. 

262 



THE SYNODAL ACTS. 263 

Some went so far as even to indicate several collections of 
archives in which the complete acts of Mcsea were preserved. 
Possevin, for instance, professed to know that a copy was in 
the archiepiscopal library at Eavenna. As a matter of fact, 
this library had only a manuscript of the Mcene Creed, which 
was written in purple and gold letters. At an earlier period, 
Pope Gregory x. had written to the King and to the Catholicus 
of the Armenians, to ask for a copy of the acts, which were 
said to exist in Armenia, but in vain. Others professed to 
know, or offered as a conjecture, that the documents in request 
were at Constantinople or Alexandria, or rather in Arabia. 
In fact, they discovered, in the sixteenth century, in old Arabic 
MSS., besides the twenty Canons of Mceea already mentioned, 
which were well known before, a great number of other eccle 
siastical ordinances, constitutions, and canons, in an Arabic 
translation, which all, it was said, belonged to the Mcene 
Council. We shall demonstrate beyond a doubt, at sec. 41, 
the later origin of these documents. 

The same must be said of an alleged collection of minutes 
of a disputation held at Mcaea between some heathen philo 
sophers and Christian bishops, which S. Gelasius of Cyzicus, 
in the fifth century, inserted in his History of the Council of 
Niccea, of which we shall presently have something more to 
say. They are also spurious, and as apocryphal as the pre 
tended minutes of a disputation between Athanasius and 
Arius. 1 Those who know this history of S. Gelasius only by 
hearsay, have taken it for an additional and more complete 
collection of the Synodal Acts of Mcsea, and thereby have 
strengthened the vague rumour of the existence of such. As 
a matter of fact, however, there is no evidence of any one 
ever having seen or used those acts. An appeal cannot be 
made to Balsamon on this point ; for when this celebrated 
Greek scholar of the twelfth century refers, in his explanation 
of the first canon of Antioch, to the Mcene acts, he is evi 
dently thinking simply of the Synodal Decree of Mcsea. 2 

We believe we can also show, that from the first no more 
acts of Mcsea were known than the three documents already 

1 See below, sec. 27. 

2 Cf. Fabricii Biblioth. Grceca, ed. Harless, xii. 580. 



264 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

named the Creed, the twenty Canons, and the Synodal De 
cree. This is indicated by Eusebius, when he says, in his 
Life of Constantine : l " That which was unanimously adopted 
was taken down in writing, and signed by all." So early as 
the year 350, Athanasius could give no other answer to a 
friend who wished to learn what passed at Nicsea. 2 If a com 
plete copy of the acts had existed, Athanasius would certainly 
have known of it, and would have directed his friend to that. 
Baronius 3 maintains that Athanasius himself speaks of the 
complete acts of Mcsea, in his work de Synodis Arim. d 
Seleuc. c. 6 ; but the Cardinal was led into error by an incor 
rect Latin translation of the passage which he quoted, for 
the Greek text does not speak of acts properly so called : it 
says only, that " if we wish to know the true faith, there is no 
need for another council, seeing we possess ra rwv irarepwv 
(that is to say, the decisions of the Mcene Fathers), who did 
not neglect this point, but set forth the faith so well, that all 
who sincerely follow their ^pa^ara may there find the scrip 
tural doctrine concerning Christ." To see in these words a 
proof of the existence of detailed acts of the Council, is cer 
tainly to give much too wide a meaning to the text, as Vale- 
sius 4 has remarked, and Pagi also: 5 it is most likely that 
Athanasius, when writing this passage, had in view only the 
Creed, the Canons, and the Synodal Decree of Mcsea. 

In default of these acts of the Council of Mcsea, which do 
not exist, and which never have existed, besides the three 
authentic documents already quoted, we may consider as his 
torical the accounts of the ancient Church historians, Euse 
bius, 6 Socrates, Sozomen, Tiieodoret, and Eufinus, as well as 
some writings and sayings of S. Athanasius , especially in his 
book de Decretis synodi Niccenoe, and in his Epistola ad Afros. 
A less ancient work is that by Gelasius Bishop of Cyzicus in 
the Propontis, who wrote in Greek, in the fifth century, a His 
tory of the Council of Niccea, which is to be found in all the 
larger collections of the councils. In the composition of this 
work Gelasius made use of the works mentioned above, and 

1 Lib. iii. c. 14. 2 De decretis Syn. Nic. c. 2. 

3 Annales, ad ann. 325, No. 62. 4 Euseb. Vita Constant, iii. 14. 

6 Crit. in Baron, ad ann. 325, No. 23. 6 Euseb. Vita Const. 



4 



THE SYNODAL ACTS. 265 

had also other ancient documents at his disposal, which had 
been carefully collected by his predecessor, Bishop Dalmasius. 
"We shall see hereafter that he admitted things which were 
improbable, and evidently false. Gelasius, however, has in 
Dorscheus a defender against the too violent attacks to which 
he has been subjected. 1 

The work of Gelasius is divided into three books, the first 
of which is only the life of the Emperor Constantine the 
Great, and contains absolutely nothing relative to the Council 
of Nicsea. The whole of the second book, on the contrary, is 
devoted to the history of that assembly. The third is wholly 
composed of three letters of Constantino s ; but we may pre 
sume that it was formerly larger, and contained particularly the 
account of Constantine s baptism, which Photius borrowed from 
Gelasius, but which was subsequently mutilated, in order that 
the honour of having been the place where the great Emperor 
received 2 baptism might not be taken from the city of Borne. 
However, no sort of proof is given in support of this suspicion. 

An anonymous Copt undertook a similar work to that of 
Gelasius. This writer probably lived a short time after the 
Council of Nicsea, and composed a sort of history of this 
Synod (Liber synodicus de concilia Nicceno) in the Coptic lan 
guage. Four fragments of this work, which was lost, were 
discovered more than fifty years ago by the learned archaeo 
logist George Zoe ga (Danish consul at Eome, a convert to 
Eoman Catholicism, and interpreter at the Propaganda, who 
died in 1809), and were published in the Catalogues codicum 
CopticoTiim manuscriptorum musei Borgiani. Unfortunately 
the proof sheets of this work were almost all lost, in conse 
quence of the death of Zoega and of his Maecenas happening 
immediately after its completion, and from a lawsuit entered 
into by the heirs. The learned French Benedictine Cardinal 
Pitra has just published these four fragments afresh, with a 
Latin version and notes, in the first volume of his Spicilegium 
Solcsmense (Paris 1852, p. 509 sqq.). 

1. The first and largest of these fragments contains the 

1 FaLricius, I.e. 581. 

2 Ittig, Histor. Cone. Niccen. ed. Ludovici, Lips. 1712, iv. p. 4 ; Cave, 
fllstoria liter aria, s.v. Gelasius Cyzic. 



266 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Mcene Creed, with the anathemas pronounced against Arms. 
Only the first lines are wanting. Then come some additions 
by the author of the Liber Synodicus. The first runs thus : 
" This is the faith proclaimed by our fathers against Arius 
and other heretics, especially against Sabellius, Photinus (? who 
lived long after Mcsea), and Paul of Samosata ; and we ana 
thematize those adversaries of the Catholic Church who were 
rejected by the 318 bishops of Nicsea. The names of the 
bishops are carefully preserved, that is to say, of the Eastern 
ones ; for those of the West had no cause for anxiety on 
account of this heresy." 

This addition had been for a long time in Hardouin s 1 col 
lection in Latin, and in Mansi s, 2 and it was generally attri 
buted to Dionysms the Less. The second addition is a more 
detailed exposition of the Catholic faith, also proceeding from 
the pen of the author of the Liber Synodicus. It says : " We 
adore not only one divine person, like Sabellius ; but we ac 
knowledge, according to the confession of the Council of 
Mcsea, one Father, one Son, one Holy Ghost. We anathe 
matize those who, like Paul of Samosata, teach that the Son of 
God did not exist before the Virgin Mary not before He was 
born in the flesh, etc. We anathematize also those who hold 
that there are three Gods, and those who deny that the Logos 
is the Son of God (Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus of 
Sirmium)." The author puts next to these two additions a 
document which has been handed down to us, the first half of 
the list of bishops present at Mcoea, containing one hundred 
and sixty-one names. 

2. The second and shortest of the fragments contains the 
second part of the Nicene Creed, not quite accurately repeated 
by one or more later believers. To the words Spiritus sanctus 
are already added Qui procedit a Patre, an interpolation which 
could not have been added till after the second (Ecumenical 
Council. Then comes a further Expositio fidei, which en 
deavours to work out the consequences of the Nicene Creed, 
and is especially directed against Sabellius and Photinus. 

3. The third fragment gives us next the end of this Ex 
positio fidei. It is followed by two additions, attributed to 

1 Hard. i. 311. 2 Mansi, ii. 665. 



NICLEA : THE SYNODAL ACTS. 267 

an Archbishop Eufinus, otherwise unknown. The first ex 
presses the joy which the orthodox doctrine gives to the 
author; the second tells us that each time the bishops rose 
at Mcsea they were three hundred and nineteen in number, 
and that they were only three hundred and eighteen when 
they took their seats. They could never discover who the 
three hundred and nineteenth was-, for he was sometimes like 
one, sometimes like another ; at last it was manifest that it 
was the Holy Spirit. Eufinus then writes a certain number 
of Sententice synodi sanctce ; but some of these judgments are 
on points which were not brought before the Mcene Council, 
especially on man s free-will. They are undoubtedly some 
what similar to the Expositio fidei ortliodoxce, which is con 
tained in the second and third fragments. 

4. The fourth fragment contains the Coptic translation of 
the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth canons of Mcsea. 
It is more or less according to the original Greek text, 
without the principal meaning ever being altered. 

These four Coptic fragments certainly possess interest to 
the historian of the Mcene Council, who is anxious to know 
all the sources of information; but they have not so much 
value and importance as Zoega and Pitra have attributed to 
them. We shall again speak of each of these fragments in 
their proper place in the history of the Council of Mcsea, 

The anonymous author of the book entitled TO, irpa^Oevra 
ev NiKaia, several manuscripts of which are in existence, pre 
tends to be a contemporary of the Mcene Council. This 
small treatise, published by Combefis, 1 and of which Photius 
has given extracts, 2 contains palpable errors, for instance, 
that the Mcene Council lasted three years and six months. 3 
It is generally of small importance. 

We may say the same of the Xo^o? of a priest of Csesarea, 
named Gregory, upon the three hundred and eighteen Fathers 
of Mcsea. Combefis, who has also published this document, 4 
supposes that the author probably lived in the seventh cen 
tury. 5 He, however, calls the book 6 opus egregium ; but, with 

1 Combefis, Novum Auctuarium, Paris 1648, ii. 574 sqq. 

1 Bibliotk. cod. 256. 3 Combefis, I.e. p. 583. 4 I.e. p. 547 s<j. 

b lc. p. 567 sq. ei.c. p. 567. 



268 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the exception of some biographical accounts of one of the 
bishops present at Nicsea, Gregory gives only well-known 
details, and improbable accounts of miracles. Although the 
value of these latter small treatises is not great, Hardouin and 
Mansi, coming after Combefis, ought to have inserted them in 
their collections of the Councils. These Collections contain 
all the other known documents relative to the history of the 
Council of Mcsea, and they form the basis of the account 
which we have to give of it. We shall hereafter speak of the 
numerous canons attributed to the Council of Nicsea, and of 
another pretended creed directed against Paul of Samosata. 

SEC. 24. Tlic Convocation ly the Emperor. 

The letters of invitation sent by the Emperor Constantine 
the Great to the bishops, to ask them to repair to Nicsea, do 
not unfortunately now exist, 1 and we must content ourselves 
with what Eusebius says on the subject. 2 " By very respect 
ful letters (T^/M/T^/COI? ypApfLacri,) the Emperor begged the 
bishops of every country (airavTa^oOev) to go as quickly as 
possible to Nicaea." Eufinus says that the Emperor also 
asked Arius. 3 It is not known whether invitations were 
sent to foreign bishops (not belonging to the Eoman Empire). 
Eusebius says that the Emperor assembled an oecumenical 
council (trvvoSov olKOV/Juevucfyv) ; but it is not at all easy to 
determine the value of the word oltcov/jLevr]? However ifc 
may be, Eusebius and Gelasius affirm that some foreign 
bishops took part in this great Council. The former says : 
" A bishop even from Persia was present at the Council, and 
Scythia itself was represented among the bishops." 5 Gelasius 
does not mention a Scythian bishop that is to say, a Goth ; 
but he begins his work with these words : " Not only bishops 
from every province of the Eoman Empire were present at 

1 The letter of imperial convocation given by the Pseudo-Maruthas in the 
10th vol. p. 31 of Angelo Mai s Scriptorum veterum nova Collectio, liomss 
1838, is spurious. Cf. p. ix. of the Prcefatio by Angelo Mai. 

2 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 6. 

3 Rufin. Histor. Eccles. i. 1. It is the continuation of his translation of the 
History of the Church by Eusebius. If, as is often done, we reckon the nine 
books of the translation, the quotation would be from x. 1. 

4 Euseb. I.e. 5 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 7. 



NIO32A: THE CONVOCATION BY THE EMPEROR. 269 

the Council, but even some from Persia." 1 The signatures of 
the members of the Council which still remain (it is true they 
are not of incontestable authenticity) agree with Eusebius and 
Gelasius ; for we there find one John Bishop of Persia, and 
Theophilus the Gothic metropolitan. 2 Socrates also mentions 
the latter, who, he says, was the predecessor of Ulphilas. 3 

It is impossible to determine whether the Emperor Con- 
stantine acted only in his own name, or in concert with the 
Pope, in assembling the bishops. Eusebius and the most ancient 
documents speak only of the Emperor s part in the Council, 
without, however, a positive denial of the participation of the 
Pope. The sixth (Ecumenical Synod, which took place in 
680, says, on the contrary: "Arius arose as an adversary to 
the doctrine of the Trinity, and Constantine and Silvester 
immediately assembled (crvve\e<yov) the great Synod at Mcsea." 4 
The Pontifical of Damasus affirms the same fact. 5 From that 
time, the opinion that the Emperor and the Pope had agreed 
together to assemble the Council became more and more 
general ; and with whatever vivacity certain Protestant authors 
may have arrayed themselves against this supposition, 6 it cer 
tainly seems probable that in such an important measure the 
Emperor would have thought it necessary not to act without 
the consent and co-operation of him who was recognised as the 
first bishop of Christendom. Let us add that Eufinus had 
already expressly said 7 that the Emperor assembled the Synod 
ex sacerdotum sententia. If he consulted several bishops upon 
the measure which he had in view, he certainly would have 
taken the advice of the first among them ; and the part of the 
latter in the convocation of the Council must certainly have 
been more considerable than that of the other bishops, or the 
sixth Council would doubtless have expressed itself in another 
way. The testimony of this Council is here of real import 
ance. If it had been held in the West, or even at Piome, 
what it says might appear suspicious to some critics ; but it 

1 Gelas. Cyzic. Commentarius actorum Concilii Nicceni, lib. i. c. 1; in Mansi, 
ii. 759 ; Hard. i. 345. 

2 Mansi, ii. 694, 696, 699, 702. s Socrates, Hist. Eccles. ii. 41. 

4 Actio xviii. in Hard. iii. 1418. 5 Cf. above, the Introduction, p. 9. 

6 e.g. Ittig, I.e. 11. 3- Eufinus, Hist. Eccl i, 1. 



270 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

took place at Constantinople, at a period when the bishops of 
this city were beginning to be rivals to those of Eome. The 
Greeks formed greatly the majority of the members of the 
Council, and consequently their testimony in favour of Rome, 
more especially in favour of the co-operation of Silvester, is 
very important. 1 

In order to make the journey to Mcrca possible to some, 
and at least easier to others, the Emperor placed the public con 
veyances and the beasts of burden belonging to the Govern 
ment at the disposal of the bishops ; and while the Council 
lasted, he provided abundantly for the entertainment of its 
members. 2 The choice of the town of Mccea was also very 
favourable for a large concourse of bishops. Situated upon 
one of the rivers flowing into the Propontis on the borders of 
Lake Ascanius, Merc a, was very easy to reach by water for 
the bishops of almost all the provinces, especially for those of 
Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace : it was a 
much frequented commercial city, in relation with every 
country, not far distant from the imperial residence in Mco- 
media, and after the latter the most considerable city in 
Bithynia. After the lapse of so many centuries, and under 
the oppressive Turkish rule, it is so fallen from its ancient 
splendour, that under the name of Isnik it numbers now 
scarcely 1500 inhabitants. This is fewer than the number of 
guests it contained at the time when our Synod was held. 

SEC. 25. Number of the Members of the Council. 

Eusebius says that there were more than two hundred and 
fifty bishops present at the Council of Mcsea ; and he adds 
that the multitude of priests, deacons, and acolytes who accom 
panied them was almost innumerable. 3 Some later Arabian 
documents 4 speak of more than two thousand bishops ; but it 

1 It is to repeat the false allegations of the Pseudo-Isidore, to say that there 
was a sort of preparatory Synod at Home before the assembly of Nicsea in 324, 
and that Arius was there anathematized. Cf. Mansi, iii. 615 ; and Walch, 
Gescli. der Kirchenvers. S. 142 f. 

2 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 6 and 9. 3 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 8. 

4 The collections of the Melchitic and Coptic canons. Cf. Selden, Com- 
mentar. ad Eutycliii origines Alcxand. p. 71 ; Mansi, ii. 1073 ; Bevereg. 
iSynodicon, vol. ii. ; Annotat. in canones concilli Nicce.nl, pp. 43, 44. 



NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 271 

is probable that the inferior orders of the clergy were reckoned 
with them, and perhaps all together they reached that num 
ber. Besides, there must have been more bishops at Mcaea 
than Eusebius mentions ; for S. Athanasius, who was an eye 
witness, and a member of the Council, often speaks J of about 
three hundred bishops, and in his letter ad Afros 2 he speaks 
expressly of three hundred and eighteen. This number was 
almost universally adopted ; and Socrates himself, who always 
follows Eusebius in his details respecting the commencement 
of the Nicene Synod, and copies him often word for word, 
nevertheless adopts the number three hundred and eighteen ; 3 
also Theodoret, 4 Epiphanius, 5 Ambrose, 6 Gelasius, 7 Eufinus, 8 the 
Council of Chalcedon, 9 and Sozomen, who speaks of about three 
hundred bishops. 10 In fact, the number of bishops present 
varied according to the months : there were perhaps fewer at 
the beginning ; so that we may reconcile the testimonies of 
the two eye-witnesses Eusebius and Athanasius, if we sup 
pose that they did not make their lists at the same time. 
The number of three hundred and eighteen being admitted, 
it is natural that we should compare it with the three hun 
dred and eighteen servants of Abraham. 11 S. Ambrose, 12 and 
several others after him, notice this parallel. Most of these 
three hundred and eighteen bishops were Greeks : among the 
Latins we find only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, 
Marcus of Calabria, Mcasius of Dijon, Domnus of Stridon (in 
Pannonia), the two Eoman priests Victor and Vincent, repre 
sentatives of Pope Silvester. 13 With Hosius of Cordova, the 
most eminent members of the Council were those of the apos- 

1 Historia Arianor. ad Monachos, c. 66 ; Apologia contra Arianos, c. 23 
and 25 ; de Synodis Arimin. c. 43. 

2 C. 2. 3 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. 8. 
4 Theod. Hist. Eccl. i. 7. 5 Epiph. Hares. 69. 11. 

6 AmiPros, de Fide ad Gratian. i. 1. 7 In Mansi, ii. 818. 

8 Rufm. Hist. Eccl. i. 1 (or x. 1). 

9 Condi. Chalced. Actio ii. in Hard. ii. 206 ; Mansi, vi. 955. 

10 Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 17. n Gen. xiv. 14. 12 I.e. 

13 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 7 ; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 14 ; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 
i. 17. This latter puts by mistake Pope Julius in the place of Pope Silvester. 
Many of the names mentioned are found only in the signatures of the Council 
of Nicoea, of which we shall speak hereafter. Cf. Ballerini, de Antiquis Collec- 
tionibus et Collectoribus Canonum. In the collection of Galland, de Vetustis 
Canonum Collectionilus dissertationum Sylloge, i. 254 sq. 



272 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

tolic sees, Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and 
Macarius of Jerusalem : then came the two bishops of the 
same name, Eusebius of Nicomedia and of Caesarea ; Potamon 
of Heraclea in Egypt, who had lost one eye in the last perse 
cution; Papmrutius of the higher Thebais, and Spiridion of 
Cyprus, both celebrated for their miracles. Paphmitius had 
one eye bored out and his legs cut off during Maximin s per 
secution. Another bishop, Paul of !N"eocesarea, had had his 
hands burnt by the red-hot irons that Licinius had commanded 
to be applied to them. James of Nisibis was honoured as a 
worker of miracles : it was said that he had raised the dead. 
There was also seen among the foremost, Leontius of Caesarea, 
a man endowed with the gift of prophecy, who during the 
journey to Nicsea had baptized the father of S. Gregory of 
Nazianzus ; besides Hypatius of Gangra, and S. Mcolas of 
Myra in Asia Minor, so well known for his generosity, 1 that 
Eusebius could say with truth : " Some were celebrated for 
their wisdom, others for the austerity of their lives and for 
their patience, others for their modesty ; some were very old, 
some full of the freshness of youth." 2 Theodoret adds : 
" Many shone from apostolic gifts, and many bore in their 
bodies the marks of Christ." : 

It is no wonder if, considering their circumstances,, there 
were some unlearned among so large a number of bishops ; 
but Bishop Sabinus of Heraclea in Thrace, a partisan of 
Macedonius, was quite wrong when, shortly afterwards, he 
laughed at the general ignorance of the members of the 
Council of Niceea. After having given vent to his hatred as 
a heretic, he did not hesitate to copy one of these Nicene 
Fathers, Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical history. 4 Socrates 
has shown that the same Sabinus fell into other contradictions. 5 

1 All these men are especially named either in the signatures of the acts of 
the Synod, or in Athan. Hist. Arianorum adMonachos, c. 12 ; Socrat. Hist. Ecd. 
i. 8 ; Sozom. Hist. Ecd. i. 17 ; Theodor. Hist. Ecd. i. 7 ; Eufin. Hist. Ecd. 
i. 4 and 5 ; Greg, of Naz. in fun. patris. In Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, 
i. 17 sqq., is to be found a biography of S. James of ISTisibis. Finally, Mansi 
has given (ii. 637 sq.) a list, composed with the greatest care, of the most cele 
brated members of the Council of Nicsea. 

2 Euseb. Vita Const, iii; 9. 3 Theodor. Hist. Ecd. i. 7. 
4 Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 8. 5 Socrat. I.e. 



NIC7EA: NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 273 



Among the auxiliaries of the bishops of Mccea, he who 
became by far the most celebrated was Athanasius, then a 
young deacon of Alexandria, who accompanied his bishop 
Alexander. 1 He was born about the year 300, at Alexandria, 
and had been consecrated to the service of the Church in a 
very peculiar manner. Eufinus relates the fact in the fol 
lowing manner : According, he says, to what he heard at 
Alexandria from those who knew Athanasius, 2 Alexander 
Bishop of Alexandria one day saw on the sea-shore several 
children imitating the ceremonies of the Church. They did 
not do it at all as children generally do in play; but the 
bishop remarked that they followed every ecclesiastical rite 
very exactly, and especially that Athanasius, who represented 
the bishop, baptized several catechumens from among the 
children. Alexander questioned them, and what he heard 
convinced him, and also his clergy, that Athanasius had really 
administered the sacrament of baptism to his little play 
fellows, and that it only required the confirmation of the 
Church. Probably the young officiant had not intended to 
play, but to do well quod fieri mdt ecclesia? According to 
the bishop s advice, all these children were consecrated to the 
work of the ministry ; and Alexander soon took the young 
Athanasius to be with him, ordained him deacon in 319, and 
placed so much confidence in him that he raised him above 
all the other clergy, and made him an archdeacon, although 
scarcely twenty years of age. 4 It is probable that Athanasius 
took part in the Arian controversy from the commencement ; 
at least Eusebius of Mcomedia, or other adversaries of his, 
attribute Alexander s persevering refusal of reconciliation 
with Arius to his influence. ".At Mcasa," says Socrates, 5 
" Athanasius was the most vehement opponent of the Arians." 

1 Socrat. I.e. 2 Euf. Hist. Ecdes. i. 14 (or x. 14). 

a The Benedictines of S. Maur, in their edition of the works of S. Athanasius 
(i. ix.) ; Tillemont (notes upon S. Athan. No. 2), In Ms Memoires (viii. 275). 
ed. Brux. 1732 ; and the learned Protestant J. A. Schmidt, in his dissertation 
Piter Athanasius baptizans (Helmst. 1701), doubt this narratire. Pagi, on the 
contrary, defends it (Critica, ad an. 311, n. 26). 

4 Socrat. Hist. Ecdes. i. 8 ; Theodor. Hist. Ecdes. i. 26. Gelas. ii. 7 (Mansi, 
I.e. ii. 818) formally styles Athanasius an archdeacon. 

5 Socrat. i. 8. 

S 



274 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

He was at the same time the man of highest intelligence in 
the Synod, and an able logician. This aptness for contro 
versy was particularly valuable in the conflict with such 
sophists as the Arians. The bishops had even brought learned 
laymen and accomplished logicians 1 with them, who, like 
Athanasius and others who were present, not being bishops, 
took a very active part in the discussions which preceded the 
deliberations and decisions properly so called. 

SEC. 26. Date of tlie Synod. 

All the ancients agree in saying that the Synod took place 
under the consulship of Anicius Paulinus and Anicius Juli 
anas, 636 years after Alexander the Great, consequently 
325 A.D. 2 They are not equally unanimous about the day 
and the month of the opening of the Council. Socrates says: 3 
" We find from the minutes that the time of the Synod (pro- 
. bably of its commencement) was the 20th May." The acts 
of the fourth (Ecumenical Council give another date. In the 
second session of that assembly, Bishop Eunomius of Mco- 
media read the Nicene Creed ; and at the commencement 
of his copy were these words : " Under the consulship of 
Paulinus and Julianas, on the 9th of the Greek month Dasius, 
that is, the 13th before the Kalends of July, at Mcsea, the 
metropolis of Bithynia." The Chronicle of Alexandria gives 
the same date, xiii Cal. JuL, and consequently indicates the 
19th June. In order to reconcile the data of Socrates with 
those of the Council of Chalcedon, we may perhaps say that 
the Council opened on the 20th May, and that the Creed 
was drawn up on the 19th June. But Athanasius 6 expressly 
says that the Fathers of Mcasa put no date at the commence 
ment of their Creed ; and he blames the Arian bishops 
Ursacius and Yalens, because their Creed was preceded by a 
fixed date. Consequently the words placed at the top of the 

1 Socrat. i. 8 ; Sozom. i. 17. 

2 For example, Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 13, ad finem ; and the (Ecumenical 
Council of Chalcedon, Actio ii., in Hard. ii. 286 ; Mansi, vi. 955. 

3 Socrat. I.e. 

4 <ry ilx/Osi TOU Maiov p.yivo$ ; and consequently not the ix Kal. Junias, as Vale- 
sins translates it. 

" Mausi, vi. 955 ; Hard. ii. 286. 6 De Synodis, c. 5 (cf. c. 3). 



NTCLEA: DATE OF THE SYNOD. 275 

copy of the Nicene Creed read at Chalcedon must have pro 
ceeded, not from the Synod of Mcaea, but from some later 
copyist. But neither can we establish, as Tillemont 1 and 
some other historians have tried to do, that this date signifies, 
not the day when the Creed was drawn up, but that of the 
opening of the Synod. Even if the Synod had affixed no 
date to its Creed, we may well suppose that this date was 
placed there at a later period, and continue to believe that 
the Council opened on the 20th of May 325, and that it 
published the Creed on the 19th of June. Baronius found 
a third chronological datum in an ancient manuscript, attri 
buted to Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, according to 
which the Synod lasted from the 14th June to the 25th 
August. 2 But we may reconcile this date with the other 
two, on the theory that the Synod was called together for the 
20th of May. The Emperor being absent at that time, they 
held only less solemn discussions and deliberations until the 
14th June, when the session properly so called began, after 
the arrival of the Emperor; that on the 19th the Creed was 
drawn up ; and that the other business, such as the Easter 
controversy, was then continued, and the session terminated 
on the 25th August. 

Valesius 3 and Tillemont 4 think otherwise. The former 
rejects the date given by Socrates, and thinks that the Council 
co aid not have assembled so early as the 20th May 325. 
He calculates that, after the victory of Constantino over 
Licinius and the Emperor s return, the mission of Hosius to 
Alexandria, his sojourn there, then the preparations for the 
Synod, and finally the journeys of the bishops to Nicsea, 
must have taken a longer time ; and he regards it as more 
probable that the Synod commenced on the 19th June. 
But Valesius erroneously supposes that the great battle of 
Chalcedon (or Chrysopolis), in which Constantine defeated 
Licinius, took place on the 7th September 324; whilst we 
have more foundation for believing that it was a year pre- 

Memoires, etc. ; " Notes on the Council of Nicsea," n. i. vol. vi. p. 354. 
2 Baron, ad ann. 325, n. 8. 

Annotat. in Socratis Hist. Ecdes. i. 13 ; and in Eusebeii Vit. Const, iii. 14, 
4 M&noires, I.e. pp. 271, 354. 



276 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

viously, in 323. l But if we admit that Constantino conquered 
Licinius in September 3 24, and that the next day, as Vale- 
sius says, 2 he reached Nicomedia, there would remain from 
that day, up to the 20th May 325, more than eight months ; 
and this would be long enough for so energetic and powerful 
a prince as Constantine was, to take many measures, espe 
cially as the re-establishment of peace in religion appeared 
to him a matter of extreme importance. Besides, in giving 
the 19th June as the commencement of the Synod, Yalesius 
gains very little time : a month longer would not be suffi 
cient to overcome all the difficulties which he enumerates. 

Tillemont raises another objection against the chronology 
which we adopt. According to him, 3 Constantine did not arrive 
at Mcaea till the 3d July, whilst we fix the 14th June for the 
opening of the solemn sessions of the Council in the presence 
of the Emperor. Tillemont appeals to Socrates, 4 who relates 
that, " after the termination of the feast celebrated in honour 
of his victory over Licinius, he left for Mcsea." This feast, 
according to Tillemont, could have been held only on the 
anniversary of the victory gained near Adrianopolis the 3d 
July 323. But first, it is difficult to suppose that two special 
feasts should be celebrated for two victories so near together 
as those of Adrianopolis and of Chalcedon: then Socrates 
does not speak of an anniversary feast, but of a triumphal 
feast, properly so called ; and if we examine what this his 
torian 6 relates of the last attempts of Licinius at insurrection, 
we are authorized in believing that Constantine celebrated nc 
great triumphal feast till after he had repressed all these 
attempts, and even after the death of Licinius. Eusebius 
expressly says 7 that this feast did not take place till after 
the death of Licinius. We need not examine whether the 
reports spread abroad respecting the last insurrections of Lici- 

1 Cf. Manso, Leben Constantlns d. Gr. S. 368 (Breslau 1817). In favour of 
this date lie quotes many laws of Constantino s of the first half of 324, and 
which could only have been published after the defeat of Licinius. Cf. Tille 
mont, Hist, des Empfreurs, iv. 194 (ed. Yenise 1732) ; and Gibbon, Roman 
Empire, ii. 

2 Annot. in Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 14. 3 Tillemont, I.e. pp. 277, 354. 
4 Socrat. i. 8. 5 Socrat. i. 8. 

6 Socrat. i. 4. r Euseb. Vita Const, ii. 19. 



THE DISPUTATIONS. 277 

nius were true or not ;* for if Constantino caused false reports 
to be spread about the projects of Licinius, it is natural that 
he should wish to confirm them afterwards by giving a public 
feast. It is true we do not know the exact date of the exe 
cution of Licinius ; but it was probably towards the middle 
of 324, according to others not until 325 : 2 and therefore the 
triumphal feast of which we are speaking could easily have 
been celebrated a short time before the Council of Mcsea. 

SEC. 27. The Disputations. 

In the interval which separated the opening of the Synod 
(20th May) and the first solemn session in the presence of the 
Emperor, the conferences and discussions took place between 
the Catholics, the Arians, and the philosophers, which are 
mentioned by Socrates 3 and Sozomen. 4 Socrates says ex 
pressly, that these conferences preceded the solemn opening 
of the Synod by the Emperor ; and by comparing his account 
with those of Sozomen and Gelasius, 5 we see that Arius was 
invited by the bishops to take part in them, and that he had 
full liberty there to explain his doctrine. We find, too, that 
many of his friends spoke in his favour, and that he reckoned 
as many as seventeen bishops among his partisans, particu 
larly Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicrea, Maris of 
Chalcedon, Theodoras of Heraclea in Thrace, Menophantus of 
Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Narcissus of Cilicia, 
Theonas of Marmarica, Secundus of Ptolemais in Egypt, and 
up to a certain point Eusebius of Ccesarea. 6 Besides, a good 
many priests, and even laymen, took his side ; for, as Socrates 
says, many learned laymen and distinguished dialecticians 
were present at these conferences, and took part, some for 
Arius, others against him. On the orthodox side it was chiefly 
Athanasius and the priest Alexander of Constantinople, vested 
with power by his old bishop, 7 who did battle against the 
Arians. 

1 Gibbon, I.e. 2 Tillcmont, Hist, des Emptreurs, iv. 195. 

3 Socrat. i. 8. 4 Sozom. i. 17. 5 Gelas. ii. 7. 11. 

c Cf. Puifinus, l.t i. 5 (or x. 5); Gelas. ii. 7. According to Philostorgius, 
there were twenty-two bishops at first favourable to Arius, whose names he 
gives. See the Fragmenta, Philostoryii, in Valesins, p. 539 (eel. Mogunt.). 

7 Socrat. i. 8 ; Gelas. ii. 7 and 5 ; in Mansi, ii. 818 and 806. The Disputatio 



278 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Sozomen also mentions these conferences, in which some 
wished to reject every innovation in matters of faith ; and 
others maintained that the opinion of the ancients must not 
be admitted without examination. 1 He adds, that the most 
able dialecticians made themselves renowned, and were re 
marked even by the Emperor ; and that from this time Atha- 
nasius was considered to be the most distinguished member of 
the assembly, though only a deacon. Theodoret praises Atha- 
nasius equally, who, he says, " won the approbation of all the 
orthodox at the Council of Mcsea by his defence of apostolic 
doctrine,, and drew upon himself the hatred of the enemies of 
the truth." Bufinus says : " By his controversial ability 
(suggestiones) he discovered the subterfuges and sophisms of the 
heretics (dolos ac fallacias)" 

Bufinus, and Sozomen, who generally follows him, mention 
some heathen philosophers as being present at the Synod and 
at these conferences, either in order to become better acquainted 
with Christianity, or to try their controversial skill against it. 4 
What Gelasius relates is not very probable : he affirms that 
Arius took these heathen philosophers with him, that they 
might help him in his disputations. 5 He gives an account, at 
a disproportionate length, 6 of the pretended debates between 
the heathen philosopher Pheedo, holding Arian opinions, and 
Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of 
Csesarea, etc., the result of which, he says, was the conversion 
of the philosopher. According to Valesius, 7 this account is 
entirely false, and what Bufinus relates about the philosophers 
is, to say the least, singular. One of these philosophers, he 
says, could not be overcome by the most able among the Chris 
tians, and always escaped like a serpent from every proof which 
was given him of the error of his doctrines. At last a con 
fessor, an unlearned and ignorant man, rose and said : " In the 
name of Jesus Christ, listen, philosopher, to the truth. 
There is one God, who created heaven and earth, who formed 

in Nicano concilia cum Ario, printed in the editions of the works of S. Atha- 
nasius, is not authentic, as the Bened. editor Montfaucon proves. 

1 Sozom. i. 17. 2 Theodoret, Hist. Ecdes. i. 26. 

3 Kufinus, I.e. i. 14 (or x. 14). 4 Eufinus, I.e. i. 3 (or x. 3) ; Sozom. i. 18. 

5 Gelas. ii. 12 ; in Mansi, ii. 826, and Hard. i. 387. 

6 Mansi, I.e. 829-875. 7 Annot. in Socr. Hist. Ecdes. i. 8. 



NICLEA: ARRIVAL OF THE EMPEROR. 279 

man of clay, and gave him a soul. He created everything 
visible and invisible by His Word : this Word, whom we call 
the Son, took pity on human sinfulness, was born of a virgin, 
delivered us from death by His sufferings and death, and gave 
us the assurance of eternal life by His resurrection. We ex 
pect Him now to be the Judge of all our actions. Dost thou 
believe what I say, philosopher ? : The philosopher, won 
derfully moved, could no longer hold out, and said : " Yes ; 
surely it is so, and nothing is true but what thou hast said." 
The old man replied : " If thou believest thus, rise, follow me 
to the Lord, and receive the seal of His faith." The philo 
sopher turned towards his disciples and hearers, exhorted them 
to embrace the faith of Christ, followed the old man, and be 
came a member of the holy Church. 1 Sozomen 2 and Gelasius 3 
repeat the account of Eufinus. Socrates 4 also relates the prin 
cipal part of the story ; but he does not say that the philo 
sophers who took part in these conferences were heathens : his 
words seem rather to refer to Christian controversialists who 
took the side of Arius. 

SEC. 28. Arrival of the Emperor Solemn Opening of the 

Council Presidency. 

During these preparatory conferences the Emperor arrived ; 
and if Socrates 5 is correct, the Synod was solemnly opened 
the very day following the discussion with the philosopher. 
From the account given by Sozomen at the beginning of the 
nineteenth chapter of his first book, one might conclude that 
the solemn session in the presence of the Emperor, which we 
are now to describe, did not take place till after all the dis 
cussions with Arius ; but Sozomen, who certainly made use 
of the narrative of Eusebius, tells us 6 that the Synod was 
inaugurated by this solemnity (rj^epas 6pio-0eio-r)$ i-fj crwoSw). 
Eusebius thus describes it : " When all the bishops had entered 
the place appointed for their session, 7 the sides of which were 

1 Puifimis, I.e. c. 3. 2 Sozom. i. 18. 3 Gelas. ii. 13. 

4 Socrat. i. 8. 5 Socrat. i. 8. 6 Vita Const, iii. 10. 

7 Eusebius (Vita Const, iii. 10) here uses the expression *u /^urctiTKry olxct, 
TMV pctffiteiuv ; that is, literally, "the building in the midst of the imperial 
palaces." Theodoret (i. 7) and Sozomen (i. 19) also speak of the Emperor s 



280 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

filled by a great number of seats, each took his place, and 
awaited in silence the arrival of the Emperor. Ere lono- the 
functionaries of the court entered, but only those who were 
Christians; and when the arrival of the Emperor was an 
nounced, all those present rose. He appeared as a messenger 
from God, covered with gold and precious stones, a magni 
ficent figure, tall and slender, and full of grace and majesty. 
To this majesty he united great modesty and devout humility, 
so that he kept his eyes reverently bent upon the ground, and 
only sat down upon the golden seat which had been prepared 
for him when the bishops gave him the signal to do so. As 
soon as he had taken his place, all the bishops took theirs. 
Then the bishop who was immediately to the right of the 
Emperor 1 arose, and addressed a short speech to him, in 
which he thanked God for having given them such an 
Emperor. After he had resumed his seat, the Emperor, in 
a gentle voice, spoke thus : My greatest desire, my friends, 
was to see you assembled. I thank God, that to all the 
favours He has granted me He has added the greatest, that 
of seeing you all here, animated with the same feeling. May 
no mischievous enemy come now to deprive us of this happi 
ness ! And after we have conquered the enemies of Christ, 
may not the evil spirit attempt to injure the law of God by 

palace. Notwithstanding this, Yalesius (Annotat. in Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 
10) believes that the Council was held in a church, because Eusebius (c. 7) 
says expressly that the bishops assembled in an olxo; ilx,ry,f>io; (from ivx,v, 
prayer). Although Eusebius makes use of the words oJxo; TUV fix/rtXiiav (c. 10), 
lie means a church that may very well be called oixo; fiairix<io;. Theodoret 
and Sozomen, he adds, did not understand the expression of Eusebius, and 
therefore spoke of the Emperor s palace. The two apparently contradictory 
expressions of Eusebius in ch. 7 and ch. 10 (oTxo; ivxrwpio; and otxos /3a<r/x. ) 
have by others been reconciled by supposing that some sessions were held in 
a church, and others in the Emperor s palace. Cf. Ittig, I.e. p. 6. 

1 According to the title of the chapter of Eusebius Vita Const, (iii. 11), and 
according to Sozomen (i. 19), this bishop was Eusebius himself, the ecclesiastical 
historian. According to Theodoret (i. 7) it was Eustathius of Antioch, and 
according to Theodore of Mopsuestia it was Alexander of Alexandria. Yale 
sius (Annot. in Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 11) decides for Eusebius ; and this is 
very probable, for we can easily understand that Eusebius might have withheld 
his own name, and mentioned the speaker only generally. Baronius (ad ami. 
325, n. 55) and Mansi (ii. 663) give the speech which. Eustathius of Antioch is 
supposed to have delivered, from Gregory of Csesarea. The genuineness of the 
report is very doubtful. See above, p. 267. 



NIC^EA: OPENING OF THE COUNCIL. 281 

new blasphemies ! I consider disunion in the Church an evil 
more terrible and more grievous than any kind of war. After 
having, by the grace of God, conquered my enemies, I thought 
J had no more to do than to thank Him joyfully with those 
whom I had delivered. When I was told of the division that 
had arisen amongst you, I was convinced that I ought not to 
attend to any business before this ; and it is from the desire 
of being useful to you that I have convened you without 
delay. But I shall not believe my end to be attained until 
I have united the minds of all until I see that peace and 
that union reign amongst you which you are commissioned, 
as the anointed of the Lord, to preach to others. Do not 
hesitate, my friends do not hesitate, ye servants of God ; 
banish all causes of dissension solve controversial difficulties 
according to the laws of peace, so as to accomplish the work 
which shall be most agreeable to God, and cause me, your 
fellow-servant, an infinite joy. " 1 

Constantine spoke in Latin. An assistant placed at his 
side translated his discourse into Greek, and then the Emperor 
gave place to the presidents of the Council (TrapeSlSov TOV 
"\6yov rot? T?}? crvvoSov TrpGeSpois 2 ). The Emperor had opened 
the Council as a kind of honorary president, and he continued 
to be present at it ; but the direction of the theological dis 
cussions, properly speaking, was naturally the business of the 
ecclesiastical leaders of the Council, and was left to them. 
We thus arrive at the question of the presidency ; but as we 
have already spoken of it in detail in the Introduction, we 
may be satisfied with recalling here the conclusion then 
arrived at, that Hosius of Cordova presided at the assembly 
as Papal legate, in union with the two Eoman priests Vito 
(Vitus) and Vincentius. 

1 We have given the Emperor s speech according to Eusebius ( Vita Const, iii. 
12). Theodoret (i. 7) gives certain additions ; but these are taken, \vith altera 
tions, from a later speech of the Emperor. Cf. Tillemont, I.e. p. 278, a. Gela- 
sius (ii. 7) has evidently expanded the speech of the Emperor. It is so full 
of words and empty of thoughts, that it certainly is not the speech of the 
Emperor Constantine. Cf. Tillemont, I.e. p. 357, n. 7, Sur le Concile de Nicte. 

2 Vita Const, iii. 13. 



282 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

SEC. 29. Mutual Complaints of the Bishops. 

When the Emperor had yielded the direction of the 
assembly to the presidents (irpoeSpois), Eusebius 1 tells us 
that the disputations and mutual complaints began. By 
this he means that the Arians were accused of heresy by 
the orthodox, and these in their turn by the Arians. Other 
authors add, that for several days divers memorials were sent 
to the Emperor by the bishops accusing one another, and by 
the laity criminating the bishops; that on the day fixed to 
decide these quarrels the Emperor brought to the Synod all 
the denunciations which had been sent to him, sealed with 
his signet, and, with the assurance that he had not read 
them, threw them into the fire. He then said to the 
bishops: "You cannot be judged by men, and God alone 
can decide your controversies." According to Socrates, he 
added : " Christ has commanded man to forgive his brother, 
if he would obtain pardon for himself." 2 

It is possible that all this account, drawn from more recent 
sources, may be only an amplification of what Eusebius relates 
of the complaints and grievances which were brought forward ; 
and this suggestion has the greater probability when we con 
sider that Eusebius, who tries on every occasion to extol his 
hero the Emperor, would certainly not have passed this ac,fc 
over in silence. However, it is impossible absolutely to 
throw aside the account by Eufinus and his successors, which 
contains nothing intrinsically improbable. 



SEC. 3 0. Manner of Deliberation. 

We possess but few sources of information respecting the 
manner of deliberation which was adopted, from the solemn 
opening of the Synod by the Emperor up to the promulgation 
of the creed. Eusebius, after having mentioned the grievances 
brought by the bishops against one another, merely continues 
thus : " Grievances were numerous 011 both sides, and there 
were at the beginning many controversies, accusations, and 
replies. The Emperor listened to both sides with much 
patience and attention. He assisted both sides, and pacified 

1 Vit. Const, i. 13. 2 //. E. i. 8 j Soz. i. 17 j Tallin, i. 2 (x. 2) ; Gelas. ii. 8. 






NIC/EA : MANNER OF DELIBERATION. 2 8 



o 



those who were too violent. He spoke in Greek, in an ex 
tremely gentle voice, answered some with arguments, praised 
others who had spoken well, and led all to a mutual under 
standing; so that, in spite of their previous differences, they 
ended by being of the same mind." 

Socrates 2 describes the discussions almost in the same 
words as Eusebius, so also Sozomen ; 3 and we may conclude 
from their testimony, and still more from the account by 
Eufinus, 4 that the discussions between the Arians and the 
orthodox, which had commenced before the first solemn session 
of the Council, continued in the Emperor s presence. As to 
the time during which these debates lasted, Gelasius 5 tells us 
that " the Emperor sat with the bishops for several months ;" 
but it is evident that he confuses the discussions which took 
place before the solemn opening of the Synod by the Emperor 
with the deliberations which followed (he speaks of the philo 
sophers for the first time after the opening), and he imagines 
that the Emperor was present not only at the later, but also 
at the preliminary deliberations. 

Eufinus maintains further, "that they then held daily ses 
sions, and that they would not decide lightly or prematurely 
upon so grave a subject ; that Arius was often called into the 
midst of the assembly ; that they seriously discussed his 
opinions ; that they attentively considered what there was 
to oppose to them; that the majority rejected the impious 
system of Arius ; and that the confessors especially declared 
themselves energetically against the heresy." It is nowhere 
said whether those who were not bishops were admitted to 
these later debates and disputations, as they had been to the 
first. Sozomen 6 speaks only of the bishops who had dis 
cussed ; Eusebius says nothing of such a limitation ; and 
it is probable that men like Athanasius, and the priest Alex 
ander of Constantinople, might speak again upon so important 
a question. Amongst the bishops, Marcellus of Ancyra sig 
nalized himself as an opponent of the Arians. 7 

1 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 13. 2 H. E. i. 8. 3 H. E. i. 20. 

4 I.e. 1 2. 5 I.e. ii. 8. G l.c. i. 20. 

7 Athanas. Apologia c. Arianos, q, 23, 32, pp. 113, 118 ; Op. t. i. 2, ed, 

Patav. 1777. 



284 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

The analogy which we may suppose to have existed be 
tween the Mcene and later Synods has caused the admission 
that at Mceea the members of the Synod were divided into 
commissions or private congregations, which prepared the 
materials for the general sessions. 1 But we find no trace 
of this fact in the ancient documents ; and the accounts of 
Eusebius and others leave us rather to suppose that there 
were no such commissions, but only general sessions of the 
bishops. 

Our information respecting these sessions is unfortunately 
very slight and defective ; and except the short intimations 
that we have already seen in Eusebius and his successors, 
few details have reached us. Gelasius himself, elsewhere so 
prolix, says no more than Eusebius and Eufinus ; for what he 
relates of the discussions of the heathen philosophers can 
only have occurred at the commencement of the Council, if it 
happened at all. We should have been very much indebted 
to him, if, instead of the long, dry, and improbable discussions 
of the heathen philosopher Phsedo, he had transmitted to us 
something of the discussions of the theologians. 

SEC. 31. PapKnutius and Spiridion. 

Some further details furnished by Eufinus give no more 
information respecting the doctrinal discussions with the Arians, 
but have reference to two remarkable bishops who were pre 
sent at Nicsea. The first was Paphnutius from Egypt, who, 
he says, was deprived of his right eye, and had his knees cut 
off, during the persecution by the Emperor Maximin. He had 
worked several miracles, cast out evil spirits, healed the sick 
by his prayers, restored sight to the blind, and the power of 
their limbs to the lame. The Emperor Constantine esteemed 
him so highly, that he frequently invited him to go to his 
palace, and devoutly kissed the socket of the eye which he 
had lost. 2 

The second was Spiridion of Cyprus, who from a shepherd 
became a bishop, continued to tend his flocks, and made him 
self famous by his miracles and prophecies. One night, when 
robbers entered his fold, they were detained there by invisible 

1 Cf. Mohler, Afhanas. i. 229 2 Kufin. i. 4 (x. 4). 



K1OEA: DEBATES WITH THE EUSEBIANS. 285 

bonds, and not till the next morning did the aged shepherd 
perceive the men who had "been miraculously made prisoners. 
He set them free by his prayer, and presented them with a 
ram, in order that they might not have had useless trouble. 
Another time he compelled his daughter Irene, after she was 
buried, to speak to him from her tomb, and tell him where she 
had placed a deposit which a merchant had entrusted to him ; 
and she gave, in fact, the required information. Such is the 
account given by Paifmus, 1 who is followed by Socrates 2 and 
Gelasius. 3 



SEC. 32. Debates with the Eusebians. TJie 

Athanasius gives us some details respecting the intervention 
of a third party, known under the name of Eusebians. It was 
composed, at the time of the Council, of about twelve or fifteen 
bishops, 4 the chief of whom was Eusebius of Mcomedia, who 
gave them his name. Theodoret 5 says of them: "They attempted 
to conceal their impiety, and only secretly favoured the blas 
phemies of Arius." Eusebius of Csesarea often sided with them, 
although he was rather more adverse to Arianism than the 

o 

Eusebians, and stood nearer to the orthodox doctrine. If we 
wished to employ expressions in use in reference to modern 
parties and assemblies, we should say : At Mcsea the orthodox 
bishops formed, with Athanasius and his friends, the right ; 
Arius and some of his friends the left ; whilst the left centre 
was occupied by the Eusebians, and the right centre by Euse 
bius of Csesarea. 6 

Athanasius 7 tells us that "the Eusebian intermediate party 
was very plainly invited by the Mcene Fathers to explain their 
opinions, and to give religious reasons for them. But hardly 
had they commenced speaking when the bishops were con- 

M. 4, 5, 2 i. 11, 12. 3 ii. 9-11. 

4 That is the number, after deducting from the eighteen to twenty-two origi 
nal friends of Arius (see above, p. 277) those who were decidedly and com 
pletely on his side. 
5 i. 7. 

6 A more thorough examination of the doctrinal position of Eusebius will be 

found below, sec. 46. 

7 Athan. cle decretis Syn. NIC. c. 3. It is evident from the close of c. 2, 
that Athanasius is speaking here generally of the Eusebians, and not of the 
Allans. Cf. c. 4, 5, 18, and Ep. ad Afros, c. 5. 



286 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

vinced of their heterodoxy," so strongly was their tendency to 
Arianism manifested. Theodoret 1 probably alludes to this fact 
when he quotes from a pamphlet by Eustathius of Antioch, 
that the Arians, who were expressly called Eusebians in the 
eighth chapter, laid before the Synod a Creed compiled by 
Eusebius, but that this Creed was rejected with great marks of 
dissatisfaction,, as tainted with heresy. We know that Vale- 
sius, in his notes upon Theodoret, 2 advances the opinion that 
the Creed in question was compiled, not by Eusebius of Mco- 
meclia, but by Eusebius of Csesarea ; but we shall see further 
on, that the historian submitted to the Council quite another 
Creed, which has been highly commended, and which would 
certainly neither have merited nor provoked such strong dis 
satisfaction from the bishops. Moreover, S. Ambrose says 
expressly, that Eusebius of Nicomedia submitted a heterodox 
writing to the Council. 3 

"When the Eusebians saw that the Synod were determined 
to reject the principal expressions invented by the Arians, 
viz. : the Son is e OVK ovrwv, a KTia-^a and Trolrj/jia ; that He 
is susceptible of change (rpeTrrij^ ^ucreo)?) and fjv ore OVK rp, 
they tried to bring it about that in their place biblical 
expressions should be selected to define the doctrine of the 
Church, in the hope that these expressions would be suffi 
ciently vague and general to allow another interpretation which 
might be favourable to their doctrine. Athanasius, who relates 
this fact, 4 does not say precisely that the Eusebians proposed 
these biblical expressions, but that they would have rejoiced 
in them. However, if we consider their habitual conduct, and 
their continual and oft-repeated complaint that an unbiblical 
expression had been selected at Nicsea, we can hardly be wrong 
in supposing that they actually suggested the use of expressions 
drawn from the Bible. The Fathers showed themselves dis 
posed to accept such, and to say, " The Logos is from God, ere 
rov @ov" (instead of " out of nothing," as the Arians wanted 
it); the Eusebians 5 consulted together, and said, "We are willing 

1 i. 7, 8. 2 i. 7, 8. 3 Ambros. de Fide, lib. iii. c. 7. 

* Epist. ad Afros, c. 5 ; Opp. t. i. 2, p. 715, ed. Patav. 
5 Atlianasius here distinguishes clearly between the Arians and Eusebians, 
and speaks first of the termini- technici of the former, and of the sophistries of 



NIOEA : DEBATES WITH THE EUSEBIANS. 287 

to accept the formula ; for all is from God, we -and all crea 
tures, as says the apostle." When the bishops found out this 
falseness and ambiguity, they wished to explain more exactly 
the words " of God," and added (in their Creed), " The Son 
is of the substance of God (ex rrjs overlap rov Seov) " and 
they could no longer pretend to misunderstand this. The 
bishops went on, and said further, " The Logos is the virtue 
of God, the eternal image of the Father, perfectly like to the 
Father, immutable and true God ;" but they remarked that the 
Eusebians exchanged signs amongst themselves, to notify that 
they agreed with these expressions : for in the Bible man is 
also called an image of God, the " image and glory of God ;" 2 
even the locusts are called a " power of God." 3 The term im 
mutable applies alike to man ; for S. Paul says, " Nothing can 
separate us from the love of Christ;" [ and even the attribute 
of eternal may be applied to man, as we see it in S. Paul. 5 

In order to exclude this dishonest exegesis, and to express 
themselves more clearly (\evKorepov), the bishops chose, in 
stead of the biblical expressions, the term O/JLOOIXTLO^ (that is, 
of the same substance, or consubstantial). 6 By this expres 
sion they meant, " that the Son is not only like to the Father, 
but that, as His image, He is the same as the Father ; that 
He is of the Father ; and that the resemblance of the Son to 
the Father, and His immutability, are different from ours : for 
in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling 

the latter (in trying to give their own meaning to the words lx Qiov). It is 
therefore quite incorrect in Neander (Ch. Hist. vol. iv.) to say : " Athanasius, 
in his Ep. ad Afros, preserves many important circumstances bearing upon 
the inner history of the Council ; but he misses the true state of the case in 
remarking only two parties in the Council, declared Arians, and partisans of 
the doctrine of consubstantiality. " But even Mohler (A than. i. 231) is mis 
taken when he refers to the Arians (properly so called) that which Athanasius 
says in the passage mentioned concerning the Eusebians (with reference to I* 
Btou). Athanasius makes a clear distinction between the Arians and Eusebians. 
1 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 17. a 1 Cor. xi. 7. 

3 In the LXX. h Mvupis pov (E. V. "my great army"). ED. 

4 Rom. viii. 35 (E. V. " Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ?"). 
Cf. vers. 38, 39. ED. 

6 2 Cor. iv. 11. [The word employed is /.] See Athanas. de decretis Syn. 
Nic. c. 20, t. i. p. 177 ; and Ep. ad Afros, c. 5, t. i. 2, p. 715, ed. Patav. 

5 For a defence of this expression, cf. Nat. Alexander, H. E, t. iv. Diss. xiv. 
p. 368 sqq., ed. Veiiet, 1778. 



288 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

v. 

the divine commands. Moreover, they wished to indicate by 
this, that His generation is different from that of human 
nature ; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but in 
separable from the substance of the Father ; that He and the 
Father are one and the same, as the Son Himself said : " The 
Logos is always in the Father, and the Father always in the 
Logos, as the sun and its splendour are inseparable." 

Athanasius speaks also of the internal divisions of the 
Eusebians, and of the discussions which arose in the midst of 
them, in consequence of which some completely kept silence, 
thereby confessing that they were ashamed of their errors. 2 
As they began more clearly to foresee that Arianism would be 
condemned, the Eusebians grew colder in its defence ; and the 
fear of losing their offices and dignities so influenced them, 
that they ended by nearly all subscribing to the ofjioovcnos 
and the entire Mcene formula. 3 Eusebius of Mcomedia, in 
particular, proved himself very feeble and destitute of cha 
racter ; so much so, that even the Emperor, before and after 
wards his protector, publicly reproached him for his cowardice, 
in a letter which we still possess, and related how Eusebius 
had personally and through others entreated him to forgive 
him, and allow him to remain in his office. 4 

SEC. 33. TJie Creed of Eusebius of Ccesarca. 

Eusebius of Csesarea made a last attempt to weaken the 
strong expression OJJLOOVO-LOS, and the force of the stringently 
denned doctrine of the Logos. He laid before the Council the 
sketch of a Creed compiled by himself, which was read in the 
presence of the Emperor, and proposed for adoption by the 
assembly. After a short introduction, the Creed was con 
ceived in these words : " We believe in one only God, Father 
Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible ; and in the 
Lord Jesus Christ, for He is the Logos of God, God of God, 
Light of Light, life of life, His only Son, the first-born of all 
creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also 

1 Atlianas. de decret. Syn. NIC. c. 20, pp. 177, 178 ; and Moliler, Allianas. 
i. 232. 

2 Atlianas. de decret. Syn. NIC. c. 3, p. 165. 3 Atlian. I.e. 
4 Tlieodoret, i. 20. 



NICvEA: THE CEEED OF EUSEBIUS OF OESAREA. 289 

everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption, 
who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third clay, 
returned to the Father, and will come again one day in His 
glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in 
the Holy Ghost. We believe that each of these three is and 
subsists : the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, 
the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost ; as our Lord also said, 
when He sent His disciples to preach : Go and teach all 
nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Eusebius added, that this 
was his true belief ; that he always had believed thus ; that 
he always would believe it, and anathematize every heresy. 1 
He relates, that after the reading of this formula nobody arose 
to contradict him ; that, on the contrary, the Emperor praised 
it very highly, declared that he thus believed, exhorted every 
body to accept the Creed and to sign it, only adding to it the 
word ofjioovaios. 2 The Emperor, he adds, himself explained 
this word O/JLOOVO-LOS more exactly : he said it did not signify 
that there was in God a corporeal substance, nor that the 
divine substance was divided (between the Father and the 
Son), and rent between several persons ; 3 for material relations 
cannot be attributed to a purely spiritual being. 4 

After these words of the Emperor, says Eusebius, the bishops 
might have added the word opoova-ios, and given to the Creed 
that form in which it might be universally adopted, to the 
exclusion of every other. 

It is possible, indeed, that the Council may have taken the 
formula of Eusebius as the basis of its own ; at least the com 
parison of the two Creeds speaks in favour of that hypothesis ; 
but even if this were so, it is not the less true that they 
differ considerably and essentially : the word oynoouo-to? is the 

1 The letter of Eusebius to his Church, in which this creed is contained, is 
found in Athanasius, de dec. Syn. Nic., in the Append, p. 187 sq., and in 
Theodoret, i. 12. 

2 Mohler (Atkanas. i. 237) has misunderstood the words of Eusebius, in sup 
posing him to say that the Emperor approved the formula of Eusebius, but yet 
exhorted them all to subscribe, not this, but the Nicene formula. 

3 See above, p. 244. 

1 In the letter of Eusebius, named above, Athan. I.e. n. 4, p. 188 ; Theodoref, 
i. 12 ; Socrat. i. 8. 



290 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

principal point, and moreover it is not correct to say that the 
Mcene Fathers added no more than this word to the Eusebian 
formula. The Arians would perhaps have been able to admit 
this Creed, whilst that of Mcsea left them no subterfuge. It 
is besides evident that in his account of the matter Eusebius 
has not spoken the whole truth, and his account itself explains 
why he has not done so. In fact, when they presented the 
Mcene Creed to him to sign, he begged a moment for re 
flection, and then signed it - 9 l and then feared, as having 
hitherto been a protector of Arianism, that he would be blamed 
for having given his signature. It was in order to explain 
this conduct that he addressed a circular letter to his Church, 
in which he related what we have just borrowed from him, 
namely, the Creed he had proposed, its acceptation by the 
Emperor, etc. After having transcribed the Mcene Creed in 
vxtenso, with the anathemas which are attached to it, he con 
tinues, in order to excuse himself : " When the bishops pro 
posed this formula to me, I did not wish to consent to it 
oefore having minutely examined in what sense they had taken 
the expressions e/c r?}? ovaias and o/xooucrto?. After several 
questions and answers, they declared that the words e /e TOV 
Trarpos did not imply that the Son was a part of the Father ; 
and that appeared to me to correspond with the true doctrine, 
which proclaims that the Son is of the Father, but not a 
part of His substance. For the sake of peace, and in order 
not to depart from the right doctrine, I would not resist the 
word ofjLoovcrios. It is for the same reason that I admitted the 
formula, ( He is begotten, and not created/ after they had ex 
plained to me that the word created designates in general all 
other things created by the Son, and with which the Son has 
nothing in common. He is not a Trolij/ma, He is not similar 
to things created by Himself ; but He is of a better substance 
than all creatures : His substance is, according to the teach 
ing of the Scriptures, begotten of the Father ; but the nature 
of this generation is inexplicable and incomprehensible to the 
creature." "As to the word o/^oouo-to?," Eusebius continues, 
" it is supposed that the Son is opoovcnos with the Father, not 
after the manner of bodies and mortal beings (>a 2 ), nor in 
1 Socrat. i. S. 2 That is, not as a man, e.g., is opoovo-tos with his parents. 



THE CREED OF EUSEBIUS OF C/ESAEEA. 291 

such a way that the substance and power of the Father are 
divided and rent, or transformed in any way ; for all that is 
impossible with a nature not begotten of the Father (ayev^ro^ 
<f>v(Ti$). The word 6/jioovcnos expresses that the Son has no 
resemblance with the creatures, but is like in all things to the 
Father who has begotten Him, and that He is of no other 
hypostasis or substance (ova-la) than that of the Father. I 
have agreed to this explanation, as I know that some ancient 
bishops and celebrated writers have also made use of the word 
ofjioovo-Lo^ After these explanations as to the meaning of 
the Mcene formula, which were supplied in the presence of 
the Emperor, we have all given our assent, and we have found 
nothing unacceptable in the anathema attached to the Creed, 
seeing that it prohibits expressions which are not found in 
Holy Scripture. In particular, it has seemed to me quite 
right to anathematize the expression, He was not before He 
was begotten; for, according to the universal doctrine, the 
Son of God was before His corporeal birth, as the Emperor 
himself affirmed : by His divine birth He is before all eternity; 
and before being begotten de facto (evepyela) by the Holy 
Ghost of Mary, He was Kara Svvajuv in the Father." 2 

These last words certainly do no honour to the character of 
Eusebius. He must have known that the Arians did not hold 
what he attributed to them, namely, that the Son was not 
before His appearance in the flesh (by Mary) ; for the Arian ex 
pression OVK TIV irpo rov ycwTjOfjvai (He was not before He was 
begotten) refers evidently to the generation of the Son by the 
Father a generation anterior to time and not to His genera- 

L Eusebius probably has here in view Origen s Dial c. Marc., and probably 
still more Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (in Ath. de dec. Syn. Nic. c. 25) 
and Gregory Thaumat (deFide, c. 2). Cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. op 00 iW. The 
Arians found fault with the word o>. that it was not in the Holy Scriptures. In 
opposition to them, Athanasius defended it (de dec. Syn. Nic. c. 21) ; and Neander 
remarks (Ch. Hist. vol. iv.) : "The defenders of the Homoousion could say, It 
was not necessary to make use of merely scriptural expressions, but to teach 
Bible doctrine, although, in other words, new circumstances might render new 
forms of expression necessary for the development and defence of biblical truth, 
and the fear of unbiblical expressions might serve to hinder the refutation of 
doctrines which were unbiblical in their essence and spirit. " 

2 Eusebii Ep. in Ath. at the end of his book, de dec. Syn. Nic. ; and Theo- 
doret, I.e. Socrat. I.e. has omitted this passage. 



292 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

tion in time by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin 
Mary, as Eusebius sophistically suggests. He must have 
known, besides, in what sense the Council rejected the OVK r\v 
IT po TOV tyevvrjOfivai, : he had recourse, however, to a dishonest 
artifice, giving another meaning to words perfectly clear in the 
Arian system, and attributing a gross folly to the old friends 
he had forsaken. 

S. Athanasius has already remarked upon this; 1 and it is 
astonishing, after that (not to speak of other writers), that 
even Mohler has overlooked the fact. 2 But on the other side 
Mohler 3 has with justice pointed out with what partiality Euse 
bius everywhere puts forward the Emperor s intervention, as 
if the Nicene Creed had been his work, and not the bishops . 
According to his account, one should imagine that the Em 
peror hindered free discussion by his presence, whilst S. 
Ambrose and S. Athanasius both assure us of the contrary. 4 
The latter particularly asserts : " All the Nicene bishops con 
demned this heresy ; . . . and they were not constrained to 
this by anybody, but they quite voluntarily vindicated the 
truth as they ought." 

The zeal displayed by the Emperor Constantine for the 
ojjioova-ios, and of which he gave proofs by the deposition of 
the Arians, contrasts strongly with the manner in which he 
regards the controversy at the beginning, and which he ex 
pressed before the Synod in his letter to Alexander Bishop of 
Alexandria, and to Arius. 6 Constantine had been at that 
time, according to all appearance, under the influence of the 
bishop of his residence, Eusebius of Nicomedia, so much the 
more as he was only a layman, and in fact only a catechu 
men himself. But during the Council Hosius 7 doubtless 
helped him to understand the question more thoroughly, and 
the subterfuges of the Arians certainly also contributed to 
oive the Emperor a strong aversion to a cause which was 
defended by such evil means. 

1 De decret. Syn. Nic. c. 3. 2 Mohler, Athanas. i. 237. 3 I.e. 235. 

4 Ambros. Ep. 13 ; Atlian. Ep. ad Episc. Jtgypti et Libya (in the old edd. 
given erroneously as Orat. i. c. Arian.), c. 13, p. 223, t. i. ed-Pat. 

5 Oux, dveiyxyi $1 nv; xpivuvrus vys* l*i rovro, XX <rre? Vfouipsfftt rw U*.Mtl*t 
i^ iKovv. T\ivrt>r/ix,a.in 1>1 Tov-ro $UMt/f xai tp6us (I.e.). 

6 See above, p. 260. 7 Cf. Eeaiider, I.e. 



THE NICENE CEEED. 293 



SEC. 34. The Nicene Creed. 

Tillemont, 1 relying upon a passage of S. Athanasius, 2 has 
thought he might venture to attribute to Bishop Hosius the 
greatest influence in the drawing up of the Nicene Creed. 
But the assertion of S. Athanasius applies only to the part 
taken by Hosius in the development of the faith of Mcsea : 
he does not speak in any way of a special authorship in the 
compilation of the formula of Nicsea. It is the same with 
the expression of S. Hilary : Hujus igitur intimandce cunctis 
fidei, Athanasius in Nicccna synodo diaconus, vchemens auctor 
exstiterat. 3 Here also only the great influence which S. Atha 
nasius had in the deliberations of the Nicene Council is spoken 
of; but it is not said that he gave the idea of the Creed. 
We know, in fine, from S. Basil, 4 that Hermogenes, then a 
deacon, subsequently Bishop of C&sarea in Cappadocia, acted 
as secretary to the Synod, and that he wrote and read the 
Creed. 

This Creed, the result of long deliberations, many struggles, 
and scrupulous examination, as the Emperor 5 himself said, 
has been preserved to us, with the anathema which was affixed 
to it, by Eusebius, in a letter which he wrote to his Church, 
and which we have mentioned above : also by Socrates, 6 Gela- 
sius/ and others. It is as follows : 

TIio-Tevoaev a? eva Seov H are pa Travro/cpaTopa, irdvTtov 
oparwv re KOI dopdrcav Troi^TrjV /cal et9 eva Kvpiov Iijcrovv 
XpiaTov TOV Tibv TOV Seov, jewTjOevTa e/c TOV IJarpos [JLOVO- 

70^7}, TOVTCCTTiV K T^9 OUCTia? TOV ITo-TpO?, 0601^ K SeOV, <^W? 

K ^CLJTO?, @eov a\ri6u>ov GK Seov akriQivov, ryevvrjOevra, ov Troirj- 
Gevra, ofjioovaiov T> Ilarpl, $L ov ra irdvra Ijevero^ rd re ev 
ovpavcp /cal ra ev Ty <yfj m TOV $L rj/uas TOVS dvOpctinrovs teal 
pav a(i)T7]pLav KaT\6ovTa /cal crapfccodevTa, evav- 
Tradovra /cal dvacrravra ry rplry rjuepa, dve\- 
et9 ovpavovs, /cal ep^ofjievov Kplvai ^oji/ra^ Kal ve/cpovs. 

1 I.e. p. 280 b. 

2 In Iris Hist. Arlanorum ad Monachos, c. 42, Athanasius says : Ou?o$ iv 

Vixatex "Tflffriv i%i@<To. 

3 Hilar. Pictav. Frac/m. ii. c. 33, p. 1306, ed. Bcncd. 1693. 

4 ]]asil. 319 ; Tiliem ont, p. 280 b. 

5 In Socrat. i. 9, p. 30 ed. Mog. 6 i. 8. 7 jj. 26, 35. 



294 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Kal els TO "A<yiov HvevjJLa. Tou? Be \eyovTas, rjv irore ore OVK 
, KOI Trplv tyewr)6fjvat, OVK TJV, KOI on et; OVK OVTOOV eyevero, fj 



erepas uTrocrracreco? rj oucrta,? aKOvras elvai, r) KTKTTOV ] 
TpetrTov i) aXXoicorbv TOP Tiov TOV Oeov, avaOe^aTi^u f] KO,- 



" WQ believe in one GOD, the Father Almighty, Creator of 
all things visible and invisible ; and in one Lord JESUS Christ, 
the Son of GOD, only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the 
substance of the Father, GOD of GOD, light of light, very GOD 
of very GOD, begotten, not made, being of the same substance 
with the Father, by whom all things were made in heaven 
and in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came 
down from heaven, was incarnate, was made man, suffered, 
rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and He 
will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the 
Holy Ghost. Those who say, There was a time when He 
was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He was 

1 We give here the text of the Creed as it is found in the letter of Eusebius of 
Csesarea to his Church (in Athan. de decret. Syn. NIC. Append. ; Opp. t. i. p. 
188, ed. Pat.). Athanasius gives this text, with some slight and unimportant 
variations, in his letter ad Jovianum imperat. c. 3 (Opp. t. i. 2, p. 623). It is 
also found in Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. 12 ; Socrat. i. 8 ; Gelasius, ii. 35 ; in the 
Acts of the (Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and elsewhere. 
Sozomen, however (i. 20), from a regard to the discipline of the Arcana, would 
not transmit the Nicene Creed to us. A careful comparison of all these texts 
has been made by "Walch, Bib. Symbol, p. 75 sqq. More recently August Halm 
(BiUiotli. der Symbole, 1842) has published such a comparison, but not, as he 
erroneously asserts, with the text from the Eusebian letter as its basis, but from 
the copy in Ath. Epist. ad Jovianum. An ancient Coptic translation of this 
Creed, or rather two fragments of it, were discovered by the renowned Zoega (see 
above, p. 265) half a century ago, and published by Pitra in the Spicikgium 
Solesmense (Paris 1852, t. i. p. 513 sqq. N. I. II.). On the erroneous view of 
Valla, that the Synod of Nicaea also drew up the so-called Apostles Creed, 
cf. Ittig, I.e. p. 44. In the 7th vol. of the Scrip. Vet. Nova Collectio of Angelo 
Mai, p. 162, there is a Creed said to have been offered at Niccea in opposition 
to Paul of Samosata, but which is evidently directed against the Nestoriana 
and Monophysites, and consequently is of later origin, and belongs to the period 
of the christological controversies. Finally, Zoega and Pitra (I.e. pp. 523-525) 
have published an ancient Coptic fragment (N. III.) which professes to contain 
Sententias Synodi Nicence, but which sets forth not only the principal points ot 
the Nicene doctrine, but also speaks of the freedom of the human will. This 
fragment has no claim to proceed from the Nicene Synod, but is elaborated by 
a more recent writer, who wished to put together the principal points of thft 
Nicene doctrine, and generally of the orthodox faith. 



THE NICENE CREED. 295 

made of nothing (He was created), or who say that He is of 
another hypostasis, or of another substance (than the Father 1 ), 
or that the Son of God is created, that He is mutable, or 
subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes." 

All the bishops, with the exception of five, declared them 
selves ready immediately to subscribe to this Creed, under the 
conviction that the formula contained the ancient faith of the 
apostolic Church. This was so clear, that even the Novatian 
bishop Acesius, although separated from the Church on points 
of discipline, gave witness to its dogmatic truth, and adopted 
the Creed unconditionally, saying, "The Council has intro 
duced nothing new in this act, Emperor ; this has been the 
universal belief since apostolic times." 2 The five bishops 
who at first refused to sign were : Eusebius of Mcomedia, 
Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Mar- 
marica, and Secundus of Ptolemais. They even ridiculed the 
term O/AOOVCTIOS, which could only refer, they said, to sub 
stances emanating from other substances, or which came into 
existence by division, separation, and the like. 3 In the end, 
however, all signed except Theonas and Secundus, who were 
anathematized together with Arms and his writings. 4 They 
were also excommunicated. 5 But a writer on their own side, 
Philostorgius, says that these three bishops did not act honestly 
in their subscription ; for he relates that, by the advice of the 
Emperor, they wrote, instead of opoova-ios, the word ofjioiovaios 
(similar in substance, instead of one in substance), which has 
almost the same sound and orthography. 6 We see, indeed, 
from the beginning that the signatures of these three bishops 
were not considered sincere ; for Bishop Secundus, when he 

1 That is, "not of one substance with the Father." The Nicene Creed still 
uses the expressions cltrla, and u-roa-raa-fs as identical. 

2 Socr. i. 10 ; Soz. i. 22 ; Gelas. ii. 29. 

3 Socrat. i. 8. On Luther s repugnance to the word o/toou/no;, cf. Ittig, 
I.e. p. 47. 

4 Soz. i. 21. 

5 Soz. i. 9 ; Theocl. i. 7, 8. S. Jerome maintains erroneously (Dial, contra 
Luc tferum, c. 7) that Arms recanted, and adopted the opoovtrtos. He probably 
confuses the Synod of ISTicsea with a later one at Jerusalem, or the presbyter 
Arius with the deacon of the same name. Cf. "VValch, Ketzerh. ii. 480 ; Schrockh, 
Kirclieng. Thl. v. S. 350. 

6 Philostorg. Fragmenta, i. 8, at the end of Valesius ed. of Evagrius. 



296 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

was exiled, said to Eusebius of Nicoxnedia : " Thou hast sub 
scribed in order not to be banished ; but I hope the year will 
not pass away before thou shalt have the same lot." 1 

SEC. 35. The Signatures. 

It appears that, at the time of S. Epiphanius (cir. 400), 
the signatures of all the 318 bishops present at Mcsea still 
existed. 2 But, in our own time, we have only imperfect lists 
of these signatures, disfigured by errors of copyists, differing 
from each other, and containing the names of only 228 
bishops. Moreover, the names of several bishops are omitted 
in these lists whom we know to have been present at Mcaea ; 
for instance, those of Spiridion and Paphnutius. The name 
even of Marcellus of Ancyra is inaccurately given as Pan- 
charius of Ancyra. 3 But in spite of these faults of detail, 
the lists may be regarded as generally authentic. They are, 
it is true, in Latin, but they bear evident traces of translation 
from the Greek. What proves their antiquity still more, is 
the circumstance that the members of the Council are grouped 
in them by provinces, as in other ancient Synods ; for in 
stance, at those of Aries and Chalcedon. That, however, 
which is of greatest importance, is the fact that the provinces 
named in these lists perfectly agree with their political divi 
sion at the time of the Mcene Council ; and particularly that 
those provinces whose limits were assigned at a later period 
are not mentioned. The bishops of these countries (e.g. 
Euphratesia, Osrhoene, etc.) are, on the contrary, classed quite 
correctly according to the names of the ancient provinces. 
This is why the Ballerini have with justice defended the 
authenticity of the lists of signatures at the Mcene Council 
against some objections made by Tillemont. 4 

Zoega has discovered a new list of this kind in an ancient 
Coptic manuscript, and Pitra published it in the Spicilcgium 
Solcsmcnse. 6 He has given not only the Coptic text, but by 

1 Pliilostorg. Frag. i. 9. 2 Epiphan. ff ceres, 69. 11. 

3 These lists are printed in all the best collections of the Councils, as Mansi, 
ii. 692 sqq. 

4 Ballerini, de Antiq. Collect ; in Galland. de Vetuslis Ganonum Collectioni- 
bus, i. 251. 

5 Paris 1852, i. 516 spp. 



NIO&A: MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST THE ARIANS. 29*7 

comparing it with the Latin lists still extant he has made out 
a new list of ISTicene bishops distributed equally in provinces/ 
and thus corrected and completed the lists known up to the 
present time. 

Even before Zoega, Selden 2 had given another list trans 
lated from the Arabic, which numbers altogether 318 per 
sons, but includes the names of several priests, and frequently 
of many bishops, for one and the same town ; so much so, 
that Labbe 3 and Tillemont 4 have decidedly rejected this list 
as apocryphal. Another shorter list, given by Labbe, and 
after him by Mansi, does not belong at all to the Mcene 
Council, but to the sixth (Ecumenical. 6 In fine, Gelasius 
gives the shortest list : it mentions only a few bishops who 
sign for all the ecclesiastical provinces. 6 

SEC. 36. Measures taken ly the Emperor against the Arians. 

When the formula of the Synod was laid before the 
Emperor, he looked upon it as inspired by God, as a revela 
tion from the Holy Spirit dwelling in men so holy, 7 and he 
threatened to banish any one who would not sign it. 8 We 
have already seen the effect produced by these threats. But 
the Emperor fulfilled them without delay, and exiled to 
Illyria Arms and the two bishops Secundus and Theonas, 
who had refused to subscribe, as well as the priests who were 
attached to them. 9 At the same time he ordered the books 
of Arius and his friends to be burned, and he threatened all 
who concealed them with pain of death. He even wished to 
annihilate the name of Arians, and ordered them in future 
to be called Porphyrians, because Arius had imitated Porphyry 
in his enmity to Christianity. 10 Subsequently Eusebius of 
Nicomedia and Theognis of Kicrca were also deposed and 
banished, because, while admitting the Creed, they would not 
recognise the deposition of Arius, and had admitted Arians 

1 P. 529 sqq. 2 Tillem. 355 b. 3 In Mansi, ii. 696. 

4 I.e. 5 Mansi, ii. 696 ct 697, nota 7. 

6 Gelas. ii. 27, 36 ; Mansi, ii. 882, 927. f Socrates, i. 9. 

8 Rufinus, H. E. i. 5 (x. 5). 

9 Philostorg. Supplem. 539, ed. Vales Mognnt. 1679 ; Sozom. i. 21; Socr. i. 9. 
Cf. the letter of Constantine to the Bishops, etc. ; Socrates, i. 9, p. 32, ed. 

Mogimt. 



298 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

amongst them. 1 At the same time, the churches of Nicsea. 
and Mcomedia were required by the Emperor to elect orthodox 
bishops in their place. The Emperor particularly blamed 
Eusebius of Nicomedia, not only for having taught error, 
but for having taken part in Licinius persecution of the 
Christians, as well as plotted intrigues against Constantino 
himself, and deceived him. 2 

SEC. 3 7. Decision of the Easter Question. 

The second object of the Mcene Council was the removal 
of the difficulties, which had existed up to that time, as to 
the celebration of the festival of Easter. The old contro 
versy respecting Easter was great and violent; but almost 
greater and more violent still is that which has been raised 
among learned men of later times on the Paschal controversy, 
and on purely accessory questions belonging to it for ex 
ample, whether the Primate had gained or lost in this con 
troversy so that the true point of the controversy has been 
almost lost from sight. 

The first who went most thoroughly into this question 
was the learned French Jesuit, Gabriel Daniel, in 1724. A 
German professor, Christopher Augustus Heumann, presented 
independently, almost at the same time, the result of his 
studies upon the Easter controversy. Mosheim examined 
the whole of this question anew, yet only with reference to 
the work of Daniel (he had not been able to lay his hand 
on Heumann s dissertation) ; and the greater number of his 
successors accepted his conclusions, particularly Walch, in 
the first volume of his Kctzcrhistorie? 

The same question has been debated with a new interest 
in modern times, because of its relation to the criticism of 
the Gospels ; and particularly by the Tubingen school, in the 
interest of its peculiar theories. But the best work published 
on this subject is that of Dean Weitzel, at the time a deacon 

1 Tlieodor. i. 19, 20 ; Sozom. i. 21 ; Athanasii Apolog. contra Arianos, c. 7, 
p. 102, ed. Patav. 

2 Constantine s letter against Eusebius is found partly in Theodoret, Hist. 
Eccles. i. 20 ; complete in Gelas. iii. 2 ; in Mansi, ii. 939 ; and Baron, ad. an. 
829, n. 13 sq. Cf. the notes of Yalesius on Theodoret, i. 20. 

3 S. 666 ff. 



DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 299 

at Kircheim, under the title of Die cJiristl. Passafeier der 
drei ersten JahrJiunderte (The Christian Paschal Controversy 
of the Three First Centuries). 1 He has cleared up several 
points which had remained obscure through want of complete 
original information. 

By the use of these preparatory works, amongst which we 
must mention the Dissertation of Bettberg, published in Ilgen s 
Zcitsclirifl fur historisclie Theologie (Gazette of Historical 
Theology), 2 and by personally investigating anew the existing 
sources of original information, we have arrived at the fol 
lowing results : As the Old Testament is the figure of the 
New, Christians in all times have recognised in the paschal 
lamb of the Jews the prototype of Christ, and His great 
expiatory sacrifice upon the cross. The Messianic passages 
in the Bible had already compared Christ to a lamb, and in 
the New Testament S. John the Baptist had explicitly called 
Him the Lamb of God ; 3 besides which, the slaying of the 
Lamb upon the cross corresponded fully with the slaying of 
the Jewish paschal lamb. The typical character of the Jewish 
paschal lamb was so evident in the eyes of the ancient 
Christians, that the Apostle Paul 4 called our Lord Jesus 
Christ " our Passover (TO irda^a rjftwv)." 

All parties unanimously agreed, in the controversy which 
rose later about the celebration of Easter, that the festival 
itself had been instituted by the apostles. But the existence 
of this controversy proves that, if the apostles prescribed the 
celebration of the festival of Easter, they did not determine 
how it was to be celebrated, so that different practices arose 
in different countries. 

It is commonly supposed that there were only two separate 
ways of celebrating Easter that of Asia Minor, and that of 
the West ; but the most modern researches have established 
beyond doubt that there were three parties in these divisions, 
of which two were in the Church herself, and a third be 
longed to an heretical Ebionite sect. 

If we would characterize these three in a general manner, 
we might say : The latter held, with the continuance of the 
obligation of the ancient law in general, the validity of the 

1 Pforzheim 1848. 2 1832, Bd. 2. 3 S. Jolin i. 36. 4 1 Cor. v. 7. 



300 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

old legal passover : their festival then, properly speaking, was 
not Christian ; it was rather Jewish. The two other parties, 
both looking from a Christian point of view, believed in the 
abrogation of the ancient law, and their festival was purely 
Christian. In their opinion, the prototype that is to say, 
the Jewish Easter had ceased, after having received its ac 
complishment in Christ; whilst the Ebionites, or the third 
party, wished still to preserve the type and the typical feast. 

But the two parties who regarded the matter equally from 
a Christian point of view, differed on two points : (a) as to 
the time of the Easter festival, and (5) as to the fast. 

To the one, as to the other, Easter was the great festival 
of Redemption by Christ. But the great drama of Eedemp- 
tion had two particularly remarkable moments the death 
and the resurrection of the Lord; and as the Jewish feast 
lasted for several days, Christians also prolonged their Easter 
for several days, so as to comprehend the two great moments 
of the work of redemption. Thus both sides celebrated (a) 
the day of death, and QQ) the day of resurrection. They 
were also agreed as to the time of the celebration of the 
festival, in so far as the two parties were agreed, to the 
greatest possible extent, as to the date of the death of Christ, 
and chose, as the first decisive point in deciding the festival, 
the 14th of Msan, not because they regarded the Jewish law 
as binding upon that point, but because Christ s Passion had 
actually commenced on that date ; and thus they formed 
their conclusions, not on legal, but on historical grounds. 

However, even with this common basis, divergences were 
possible, in that some insisted upon the day of the week, and 
wished specially to preserve the remembrance of that upon 
which Christ had died, and also that upon which He had 
risen again. These and they were principally the Westerns 
consequently always celebrated the anniversary of the death 
of Christ upon a Friday, and the day of resurrection upon 
a Sunday, considering this custom as the aXrfBetrrepa rdfys 
(truer order), in opposition to the Jewish ordinance. 1 The 
others, on the contrary, belonging chiefly to Asia Minor, in- 

1 See Constantino s letter upon the Mcene decrees, in Eusebius, Vita Const. 
iii. 18. 



NIOEA : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 301 

sisted upon the day of the year and of the month, and wished 
above all to celebrate the remembrance of the Lord s death 
exactly upon the day of the month on which it happened, 
which, according to them, was the 14th Msan. They be 
lieved, as we shall see hereafter and the Westerns held the 
same opinion that Christ had not partaken of the paschal 
lamb with His disciples in the last year of His life, but that 
on the 14th of the month Msan, before the feast of the 
passover, He had been crucified ; * consequently they wished 
to celebrate the Saviour s death on the 14th Msan, whatever 
day of the week it fell upon, even were it not a Friday. 

Thus the first difference as to the time consisted in this, 
that the one considered above everything the day of the week 
upon which Christ died, whilst the ethers attached the most 
importance to the day of the month or of the year. But the 
former did not neglect either the day of the month or of the 
year : with them also the 14th Msan (/ = 14) was decisive ; 
that is to say, they too regulated their festival according to 
the t$ f . When the 14th Msan fell upon a Friday, the two 
parties were agreed about the time of the festival, because the 
day of the week and of the month coincided. But if, for 
example, the t8 fell upon a Tuesday, the Asiatics celebrated 
the death of Christ upon the Tuesday, and the Westerns on 
the following Friday ; and if the *8 fell upon a Saturday, the 
Asiatics celebrated the death festival upon that Saturday, 
whilst the Westerns kept it still on the Friday following. 

All this it is needless to discuss ; but one point is not cer 
tain, namely, whether, when the i& (and consequently their 
commemoration of the death) did not fall upon a Friday, but, 
for instance, on a Wednesday, the Asiatics celebrated the 
feast of the resurrection the third day after the commemora 
tion of the death in this case on the Friday or kept it on 
the Sunday. Weitzel holds the latter opinion ; 2 but he has 
not been able to bring sufficient proofs in support of his 
decision. All depends here upon the sense given to the words 
of Eusebius : " The majority of bishops had (in the second 
century) decreed that the /jLvartfpiov TTJS etc vefcpwv 



1 See the details which follow. 

2 Cf. S. 1Q3, 104, 112, 265. 



302 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

could be celebrated only on a Sunday." Does he by 
nj? etc ve/cp., etc., refer to the mystery of the resurrection ? If 
so, it demonstrates that the feast of the resurrection had until 
then been celebrated upon other days. To escape this argu 
ment, Weitzel takes fjiva-rripiov in the sense of sacrament, that is 
to say, the reception of the holy communion ; and according to 
him, these bishops ordained the communion of the resurrection 
to be received only on Sunday ; whilst previously the Asiatics 
had been satisfied to celebrate the feast of the resurrection on 
Sunday, but had been accustomed to communicate on the day 
upon which the 1 4th Msan fell. We should rather hold the 
opinion that it was the feast of the resurrection which pre 
viously had not been celebrated on Sunday. This question of 
the communion leads us to the second point of difference be 
tween the Asiatics and the Occidentals, that is to say, the fast. 

This divergency arose from the different way of conceiving 
of the day of the death of Christ. The Westerns considered 
it exclusively as a day of mourning : they looked upon it, so 
to speak, from the historical side, and were in the same state 
of mind as the disciples upon the day of the death of Christ, 
that is, in deepest sorrow. The Orientals, on the contrary, 
rather considered this day, from its dogmatic or doctrinal side, 
as the day of redemption ; and for this reason it was to them, 
not a day of mourning, but of joy, dating from the moment 
when Christ died, and had thus accomplished the work of 
redemption. Yet the hours of the day preceding the moment 
of death were spent by them in mourning, in memory of the 
Passion of Christ. They completed the fast at the moment of 
the death of Christ three o clock in the afternoon and then 
they celebrated the feast of the communion, that is to say, the 
sacred rite of the feast, with the solemn Agape (love-feast) and 
the SeiTrvov Kvpiov (Supper of the Lord). The Occidentals, 
on the contrary, considering the whole day as consecrated to 
mourning, continued the fast, a sign of mourning, and did not 
end it until the joyful morning of the resurrection. It was 
upon this day that they celebrated the Easter communion, 2 
and not upon the Saturday, as Mosheim has supposed. 

It is a secondary question, whether the Eastern Church 
1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 23. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 23. 



DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 303 

ended their fast upon the 14th Msan after the Easter com 
munion, or recommenced it once more, and continued it to the 
day of the resurrection. The words of Eusebius, 1 impartially 
considered, are favourable to the first opinion ; for his eirCKveaOai, 
(to loose) and his &r/Xucrf$ (loosing) of the fast indicate rather 
a total completion than a simple suspension. In spite of this, 
Mosheim 2 has attempted to demonstrate, from a passage of 
S. Epiphanius, 3 that the Audians, 4 a degenerate branch of the 
Quartodecimans, of Asia Minor, fasted again after their Easter 
feast. But even if the Audians did in fact follow this custom, 
it cannot from this be concluded that it was an universal Eastern 
custom. In the second place, Mosheim was the first to see in 
this passage what he wished to demonstrate ; and he mis 
understood it, as we shall see hereafter when speaking of the 
sect of the Audians. 

This difference respecting the fast was not the only one. 
Not merely was the day of the end of the fast not the same 
with the Eastern and Western Churches, but there was no 
perfect uniformity in the manner (etSo?) of fasting, 5 and this 
difference went back to the remotest times. S. Irenaeus indi 
cates this in the fragment of his letter to Pope Victor, which 
Eusebius has preserved: 6 "Some," says he, "fast only one 
day ; others two ; others, again, several days." Then come 
these obscure words, ol Se Teo-o-apaKovra a>pa$ fipepwas re ical 
vv/crepwas av/ufjieTpovo-i TTJV rjfi^pcut avrtov. . If we place a 
comma after Teo-a-apaKovra, the sense is this : " Others fast 
forty hours, reckoning the hours of the day and night ; " that 
is to say, they fast equally by day and night. Massuet has 
understood the passage in this way. 7 But if we place no 
comma after reo-crapd/covTa, the sense is : " Others fast in all 
forty hours by day and night (perhaps the twenty-four hours 

1 Euseb. v. 23. 

2 Commentar. de rebus Christianorum ante Const. M. p. 441. 

3 Epiplian. H ceres. 70. 11. 

4 See Mosheim, Ch. Hist. (Murdock), b. ii. Pt. ii. c. 5, 23, n. ED. 

5 Irenpeus says (in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24) : olSi, yap povov <xtp} T*?J fi/tipus Iff*}* 

91 KftQlfffirtTViriS, AA KO.I Tlpl TOV i lOOUg KVTOV T /7J V /lffrtlOCS. 

6 v. 24. 

7 In the dissertations subjoined to his edition of S. Irenseus, t. ii. dissert, ii. 
art. 1, 23-28, pp. 74-77. 



304 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

of Good Friday and sixteen hours on Saturday)." Valesius 
and Bonnier defend this interpretation. Gieseler gives a third 
explanation. He proposes to read rfj v^epa, or more exactly, 
avv rfj f]fJLpq, instead of TTJV r^Jikpav, and translates it thus : 
"Others reckon forty hours in all with their day;" that is, 
they fast upon the day they consider as the passover, or the 
day of the death of Christ, and begin with the death-hour 
(three hours after noon) a new fast of forty hours until the 
resurrection. 1 We do not think that such a modification of the 
text, wanting in all critical authority, can he justified ; but 
we cannot absolutely decide between Massuet and Valesius, 
which is happily unnecessary for our principal purpose. 
S. Irenseus clearly says that the differences in the manner 
of celebrating Easter were then of no recent date that they 
had also existed in the primitive Church. After Yalesius 
translation, S. Irenseus concludes that this difference was the 
result of the negligence of the rulers (tcparot/VTwr) of the 
Church; but Massuet has proved that this translation was 
incorrect, and demonstrated that the expression /cparelv does 
not here mean to rule, but to maintain (a custom), and that 
S. Irenseus intended to say, " who (our ancestors), it appears, 
have not sufficiently maintained the matter (irapa TO atcpiph 
KparovvTwv), and thus have bequeathed to their descendants a 
custom which arose in all simplicity, and from ignorance." 

What we have just said plainly proves, that the two parties 
of whom we speak, the Asiatic and Western Churches, were 
both perfectly established upon a Christian and ecclesiastical 
basis ; for Easter was a festival equally important and sacred 
to both, and their difference had regard, not to the kernel of 
the matter, but to the shell. It was otherwise, as we have 
already indicated, with the third party, which, for the sake of 
brevity, we call the Ebionite or Judaic sect. 3 It had this in 
common with the Asiatic party, that it determined the cele 
bration of Easter according to the day of the month or of the 
year (the tS ), without regard to the day of the week. Con- 

1 Gieseler, Kircliengesch. 3te Aiifl. Bd. i. S. 197 f. note cc. [A translation is 
published by Clark of Edinburgh.] 

2 Cf. Ireneei Opp. ed. Massuet, t. i. p. 340, note x., and t. ii. dissert, ii. 27, p. 76. 

3 They will be described at greater length below. 



DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 305 

sequently there were two parties of Quartodecimans, if we take 
this expression in its more extended sense ; that is to say, two 
parties who celebrated their Easter festival upon the 1 4th Nisan, 
who were thus agreed in this external and chronological point, 
but who differed toto ccelo in regard to the essence of the matter. 

In fact, the Ebionite party started from the proposition, 
that the prescription of Easter in the Old Testament was not 
abolished for Christians, and therefore that these ought, like 
the Jews, and in the same manner, to eat a paschal lamb in 
a solemn feast on the 14th Nisan. This Jewish paschal 
banquet was to them the principal thing. But the other 
Quartodecimans, regarding the subject in a Christian light, 
maintained that the ancient paschal feast was abolished that 
the type existed no longer that what it had prefigured, 
namely, the death of the Lamb upon the cross, had been 
realized, and that therefore the Christian should celebrate, 
not the banquet, but the death of his Lord. 1 

The difference between these two parties therefore depends 
upon the question as to the perpetual obligatory force of the 
Mosaic law. The Ebionite Quartodecimans accepted, while 
the orthodox denied this perpetuity ; and consequently the latter 
celebrated not the Jewish passover, but the day of the death 
of Christ. Both parties appealed to the Bible. The Ebionites 
said: Christ Himself celebrated the passover on the 14th 
Msan ; Christians, then, ought to celebrate it on that day, and 
in the same way. The orthodox Quartodecimans maintained, 
on the contrary, that Christ had not eaten the passover in 
the last year of His earthly life, but that He was crucified 
on the 14th Nisan, before the time of the paschal feast com 
menced ; and that thus the 1 4th Nisan is the anniversary, 
not of the feast of the passover, but of the death of Christ. 2 

Eusebius 3 asserts that Asia was the home of the Quarto- 
deciman party. But it is not quite clear what he means by 
Asia ; since the word signifies sometimes a quarter of the 

1 Cf. Chrcnicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, in the Collection of the Byzantines, 
Bonn, i. 10 ; and "VVdtzel, I.e. S. 21. 

2 Cf. Fragments of S. Hippolytus, in the Chromcon PascJiale, ed. Dindorf, 
i. 12 ; and Weitzel, S. 65 f. 

3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl v. 24. 

u 



306 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

world, sometimes Asia Minor, sometimes only a portion of the 
latter, 1 Asia Proconsularis, of which Ephesus was the capital. 
Eusebius has not here taken the word Asia in any of these 
three acceptations : for (a) the Quartodeciman party had not 
its home either in the whole of Asia Minor or the whole of 
Asia, since, as Eusebius himself says, 2 Pontus (in Asia Minor), 
Palestine, and Osrhoene followed another practice ; and, on 
the other side, (/5) it was not confined to proconsular Asia, 
for we find it also in Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, as S. 
Athanasius testifies. 3 S. Chrysostom says even, that formerly 
it prevailed also at Antioch. 4 

But Eusebius points out his meaning more clearly in the 
following chapter, 5 where he classes among the Quartodeci- 
mans the Churches of Asia (proconsular), " and the neighbour 
ing provinces" "We shall see later, that there were amongst 
these Quartodecimans in Asia Minor, not only orthodox, but 
Ebionites, particularly at Laodicea. If the Quartodecimans in 
general formed a minority among Christians, 6 the Ebionites, 
as it appears, formed but a small group in this minority. 

The great majority of Christians regulated the festival of 
Easter according to the day of the week, so that the resurrec 
tion might always be celebrated on a Sunday, and the death 
of Christ always on a Friday. According to Eusebius, this 
mode of celebration of the Easter festival " was observed by 
all other Churches throughout the whole world, with the ex 
ception of Asia ;" 7 and he particularly mentions Palestine, 
Borne, Pontus, France, Osrhoene, Corinth, Phoenicia, and Alex 
andria. 8 The Emperor Constantine the Great affirms that " all 
the Churches of the West, the South, and the North, had 
adopted this practice, particularly Eome, the whole of Italy, 
Africa, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, Achaia (Greece) ; 

1 See Trench, Notes on the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia. ED. 

2 Euseb. v. 23. 

3 Ad Afros. Epist. c. 2, t. i. P. ii. p. 713, ed. Bened. Patav. 1777. Constan 
tine the Great says in Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 19, that Cilicia followed the prac 
tice of the West. 

4 Oratio in eos quipasclia jejunant (Opp. ed. BB. t. i. p. 608, n. 3). 

5 Euseb. v. 24. 6 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 19 ; Hist. Eccl v. 23. 

7 Vita Const, iii. 19 ; Hist. Eccl v. 23. 

8 Hist. Eccl. v. 23, 25. 



NICLEA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 307 

it Lad even been adopted in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and 
Cilicia." This can be only partially true of Cilicia and Asia 
Minor ; for the latter was quite the seat of the Quartodeci- 
mans, and S. Athanasius distinctly classes Cilicia amongst 
the Quartodeciman provinces. 2 

It follows from what has been said, that it is not quite 
correct to call the practice of those who regulated Easter 
according to the day of the week the Western practice; for a 
great number of the Eastern provinces also adopted this plan. 
It might rather be called the common or predominant use : 
whilst the Quartodeciman custom, which was based on a 
Jewish theory, should be called the Ebionite ; and the second 
Quartodeciman custom, which rested upon a Christian basis, 
may be called the Johannean. The orthodox Quartodeci- 
mans, indeed, specially appealed to S. John the evangelist, 
and partly to the Apostle S. Philip, as we see from the letter 
of their head, Poly crates of Ephesus ; 3 and they affirmed that 
these two great authorities had always celebrated Easter on 
the 1 4th Nisan. But the Western or ordinary usage was also 
based upon the apostolical authority of the prince-apostles 
SS. Peter and Paul, who, according to them, had introduced 
this custom. 4 

Besides, all parties preserved the expression of the feast of 
the passover given in the Old Testament, although it only 
recalled particularly the passing of the destroying angel over 
the dwellings of the Israelites ; for nDS> } from nos, signifies 
passing over. 5 In a more general way this word signifies the 
deliverance from Egypt ; and in this sense it might have been 
employed figuratively by Christians, as their feast of deliver 
ance from Egypt. The Aramaic ^ntps (Pascha) prevailed along 
with the Hebrew form np3 (Pesach), and more widely than 
this ; and thus many Gentile Christians, who were unac 
quainted with Hebrew, were easily led to derive the word 
Pascha from the Greek verb Trdcr^eiv. 

Sometimes by the word Pascha was signified the whole week 
of the Passion, sometimes the days which they celebrated dur- 

1 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 19. 

2 Athan. Ep. ad Afros, c. 2. 8 Euseb. v. 24. 

4 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. v. 23 ; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. v. 22. 5 Ex. xii. 21, 27. 



308 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

ing that week, or even a particular day in it, especially that 
of our Lord s death. Tertullian, for instance, in his book de 
Jejunio* calls the whole week Pascha, but in his work cU 
Oratione 2 only Good Friday. Constantine the Great, in the 
same way, speaks sometimes of one day, sometimes of several 
days, in Easter week. 3 Pie seems also particularly to signify 
by the word Easter the day of the death of Christ ; neverthe 
less he calls the day of the resurrection not only fjpepa dva- 
cTacrea}?, 4 but also TracT^a, as may be seen from the whole tenor 
of the passage in Eusebius, 5 and from several others quoted by 
Suicer. 6 Basil the Great, for instance, in his Exhortatio ad 
JBaptismum, 7 identifies the $fJ*ipa TOV Trdcr^a with the fj,vr}]j,6- 
GVVQV (day of commemoration) rrjs am<7Tacre&>9. 8 Subsequently, 
from what period is uncertain, in order to make a distinction, 
they call the day of the death irdcr^a o-ravpooo-i/jLov (passover 
of crucifixion), and the day of the resurrection 7rda%a dva- 
a-Tdcrifjiov g (passover of resurrection). 

It is clear from a passage in Tertullian, 10 that the uni 
versal custom of the ancient Church was to celebrate Easter 
for a whole week. S. Epiphanius says still more plainly, 11 
" The Catholic Church celebrates not only the 1 4th Msan, 
but the whole week ;" and as he certainly emphasized this 
in opposition to the Quartodecimans, we may presume that . 
the Ebionite Quartodecimans celebrated only the 14th of 
Msan as the feast of the passover ; that at least the other 
days were thrown into the shade relatively to this principal 
feast, which was quite in accordance with their Jewish ten 
dency. The observance of the Mosaic prescription respecting 
the paschal feast seemed to them far more important than 
the celebration of the days of the death and resurrection of 
our Lord. 

Although there was a notable difference in the three ways 
of keeping Easter, the antagonism between the Johannean 
and the ordinary custom was first noticed ; but the higher 

i C. 14. 2 C. 14. 3 In Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 18. 

4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl v. 23. 5 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 23. 

6 Suiceri Thesaurus e Patribus Greeds, ii. 622, i. 304. 

7 Basil. Orat. xiii. 8 Suic. I.e. i. 304. 

Suic. I.e. ii. 621 sq., i. 304. 10 Tertull. de Jejnn c. 14. 

11 -Eihan. Hceres. 50. 3. 



NIC^EA : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 309 

unity in the spirit and in the essence of the subject made the 
chronological difference seem less striking and more tolerable. 
S. Irenseus gives a proof of this when he distinctly says, in a 
fragment of the synodical letter which he wrote in the name 
of the Gallican bishops, " that the Eoman bishops before Soter, 
namely Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus (the 
latter was living at the beginning of the second century), did 
not follow the Asiatic custom, nor did they tolerate it amongst 
their people, but that nevertheless they lived amicably with 
those who came to Eome from countries where a contrary 
practice prevailed ; and they even sent the holy Eucharist, 
in token of unity, to the Quartodeciman bishops of those 
Churches." 1 

The first known debate respecting this difference, and the 
first attempt made at the same time to put an end to it, took 
place when S. Polycarp went to Piome to see Pope Anicetus, 
towards the middle of the second century. 2 We cannot de 
termine exactly in what year this took place. Baronius de 
clares, but with insufficient reason, for the fifth year of Marcus 
Aurelius, 167 years after Christ. 3 But Polycarp was so 
advanced in years at this time, that it is difficult to believe he 
could have undertaken so long a journey ; besides, Anicetus 
had then been in the see of Eome for ten years, and conse 
quently Polycarp might well have visited him before. 4 How 
ever, Polycarp went to Eome, and not about the Easter business, 
as Baronius concludes from an incorrect translation of Euse- 
bius, but about some other slight differences which he wished 
to compose in concert with Anicetus. 5 He was certainly 
the most worthy representative of the Johannean or Asiatic 
opinions, being recognised as the most distinguished bishop of 
Asia Minor, and certainly the only disciple of S. John then 
living. We may suppose that he followed the Johannean 
practice with regard to the celebration of Easter, not only from 
the fact that he was Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, but 

1 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. It was the custom in the primitive Church 
to send the holy Eucharist at Easter to friendly bishops ; but the fourteenth 
canon of the Synod of Laodicea forbid this practice. 

Euseb. Hist. Eccl v. 24. 3 Baron . ad ann- 16?> n< g gq< 

1 Valesii Annot. in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. 5 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. I.e. 



310 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

also from this, that Polycrates of Ephesus, the ardent defender 
of the Johannean custom, particularly appealed to Polycarp 
in his struggle with Pope Victor. 1 Polycarp and Anicetus 
received each other with the kiss of peace, and held a con 
ference on the subject of Easter, which did not however last 
long, Anicetus being unable to induce Polycarp to abandon a 
practice which the latter " had observed in communion with, 
the Evangelist S. John." Neither would Anicetus abandon 
the custom pursued by his predecessors in the episcopate. In 
spite of this difference they lived in communion, and Anicetus 
conferred what was then a very special mark of distinction 
upon his host, allowing him to celebrate the holy Eucharist in 
his church and in his presence. After that they separated in 
peace, and the same feeling continued between the two parties 
whom they represented. 2 

Some years after Polycarp s journey we meet with the 
first known movements of the Ebionite Quartodecimans. 
Melito Bishop of Sardes relates, 3 in a fragment of his work 
(two books, Trepl TOV Trdo-^a), that "when Servilius Panlus 
was Proconsul of Asia, and Sagaris Bishop of Laodicea had 
suffered martyrdom, 4 a warm controversy arose at Laodicea on 
the subject of Easter." The time in which Melito flourished 
was probably about the year 170. This fragment does not 
specify the particular point upon which the controversy 
turned, but we learn that from another source. Apollinaris 
of Hierapolis, a contemporary, a friend, and a compatriot of 
Melito, whose opinions also he held, likewise wrote a work 
upon Easter ; and the two fragments which have been pre 
served in the Clironicon Paschale assert (1) " Those are 
mistaken who hold that our Lord ate the paschal lamb with 
His disciples upon the 14th Nisan, and that He died upon 
the great day of unleavened bread (the 15th Nisan). They 
pretend that S. Matthew affirms it ; but such an opinion is 
not accordant with the (ancient) law, and the Gospels (espe 
cially those of S. Matthew and S. John) would thus be con 
tradictory." The second fragment says: "The 14th Msan 

1 Euseb. I.e. 

2 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. v. 24. Cf. Yalesius notes upon this passage. 
* Euseb. iv. 26. 4 Cf. Euseb. Hist. Ecd. v. 24. 



NKLEA : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 311 

is the true passover of our Lord, the great Sacrifice ; instead 
of the lamb, we have here the Lamb of God," etc. 1 

By these fragments we see that Apollinaris belonged to 
those Christians who held that our Lord did not partake of 
the passover the last year of His life, but that He was cruci 
fied upon the 1 4th Nisan. Thus the immolation of the lamb, 
the type, was realized by the death of the Lamb upon the 
cross upon the same 14th of Nisan, in the week of the 
Passion. The type was then abolished, and the commemora 
tion of the death of Christ replaced the Jewish (iS 1 ) feast. 
He holds that by admitting this theory the evangelists can 
be harmonized, and that an exact parallelism was established 
between the facts of the New and the types of the Old Testa 
ment. 2 According to the opposite opinion, however, (1) the 
evangelists are not agreed; and (2) that opinion does not 
agree with the ancient law. It is not said why, but we may 
conclude from his words that the following was implied : " If 
Christ had eaten the paschal lamb upon the 14th Nisan, His 
death should have taken place upon the 15th Nisan, whilst 
the type of this death was only upon the 14th; and con 
sequently the resurrection falls upon the 17th Nisan, whilst 
the type occurs upon the 16th." 

The proximity of Hierapolis and of Laodicea, and the fact 
that Melito and Apollinaris lived at the same time, sanction 
the presumption that the party attacked by the latter was 
identical with that of Laodicea, and which Melito attacked ; 
and as Apollinaris and Melito were associated as apologists 
and lights of their time, they were also certainly associated 
in the Easter controversy. Apollinaris was, as his fragments 
prove, a Johannean Quartodeciman ; and Melito was the 
same, for Polycrates expressly appeals to him. 3 

But against whom did Apollinaris write, and what was 

1 Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf (in the Byzantine Collection), i. 13. Cf. 
Weitzel, I.e. S. 22 if. 

2 OLD TESTAMENT. NEW TESTAMENT. 

14th Nisan, . . . Immolation of the Immolation of the 

paschal lamb. Lamb of God. 

16th Nisan, . . . Offering of the First-iruits of the 

first-fruits. resurrection. 
8 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. v. 24. 



312 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the character of the party against whom he and Melito con 
tended ? Apollinaris does not enter into detail upon this 
point: he simply indicates, in the first extract, that his 
opponents celebrated the paschal feast upon the 14th Nisan. 
They were therefore Quartodecimans ; but as he was of that 
class himself, we must seek elsewhere for the special character 
of his adversaries ; and as in the second extract he strongly 
insists upon the 14th Msan "being the true passover of the 
Lord, the great sacrifice wherein the Son of God was immo 
lated instead of the Jewish lamb," we may conclude natu 
rally enough that his adversaries were Ebionite Quartodeci 
mans, who also celebrated, it is true, the 14th Msan, but in 
a Jewish manner, with the feast of the passover. 1 This is 
made still more evident by an extract from Hippolytus, of 
which we shall have to speak hereafter. Moreover, the work 
of Melito determined Clement of Alexandria to write a Xo<yo? 
Trepl TOV Trd&xa, not indeed to refute it, but to complete 
Melito s work. Of this work of Clement s we have only 
fragments preserved in the Chronicon Paschale, 2 and the first 
of these fragments says : " Christ always ate the paschal 
lamb with His disciples in His earlier years, but not in the 
last year of His life, in which He was Himself the Lamb 
immolated upon the cross." The second fragment has the 
words : " Christ died on the 1 4th of Msan ; and after His 
death, on the evening of the same day, the Jews celebrated 
their passover feast." 

Clement here quite agrees with Apollinaris, and his work 
proves that the same party which Apollinaris opposed still 
existed after the lapse of many years. 

After some time, S. Hippolytus attacked them in two 
fragments, both preserved in the Chronicon Paschale* He 
distinctly says : " The controversy still lasts, for some errone 
ously maintain that Christ ate the passover before His death, 
and that consequently we ought to do so also. But Christ, when 
He suffered, no longer ate the legal passover ; for He was 
Himself the passover, previously announced, which was on 
that day fulfilled in Him." This fragment by Hippolytus is 

1 Of. "VVeitzel, S. 16-59. 2 Clironicon Paschale, I.e. p. 14. 

3 Cf. Weitzel, I.e. S. 18, 60 f. 4 i. 12 sq. 



NIC/EA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 313 

taken from his work against the heresies, 1 and consequently 
from that time the Ebionite Quartodecimans were rightly con 
sidered as heretics. He says again, in the second fragment of 
his work upon Easter : " Christ did not partake of the pass- 
over before His death ; He would not have had time for it." 2 
We need not wonder that an Italian bishop like Hippo- 
lytus should have thought it necessary to oppose the Ebionite 
party ; for it was not restricted to Phrygia (Laodicea) and the 
other countries of Asia Minor, but it had found defenders 
even at Borne, and Hippolytus was a priest of the Eoman 
Church he was even for some time a schismatical Bishop of 
Borne. 3 Eusebius 4 indeed says : " Several sects arose in Borne 
in the time of the Montanists, of which one had for its chief 
the priest Elorinus, another Blastus." He does not tell us 
their doctrine, but says that Elorinus was deposed, and that 
both of them had seduced many of the faithful. He adds: 5 
Irenseus wrote against Elorinus a book called cle Monarcliia, 
and against Blastus another, de Schismate ; but again he does 
not mention the doctrine taught by Blastus. We have no 
more account of it than is contained in the apocryphal 
supplement to Tertullian s book de Prescriptione, 6 where it 
is said, in the fifty-third chapter : Est prceterea his omnibus 
(to Marcion, to Tatian, etc.) etiam Blastus accedens, gui la- 
tenter Judaismum mdt introducere. According to this text, 
Blastus was a Judaizer, having tendencies analogous to those 
of the Ebionite Quartodecimans of Asia Minor (especially of 
Laodicea 7 ). If Blastus, towards 180, tried to introduce the 
Ebionite Quartodecimanism into Italy, and even into Borne, 
the aversion of Pope Victor towards the Quartodecimans in 
general can be easily explained, and his earnestness in his 
controversy with Polycrates and the Asiatics. 



po; K<rKirct; TK; ulpsfsis, as the Chron. Pascli. says. That is the 
aiptff-uy and Dollinger shows that this is not identical with the newly 
discovered QiXoo-otpouptvet (Hippol. and Call. S. 7 ff.). 

2 Cf. Weitzel, I.e. S. 66 f. 

3 Cf. Dollinger, Hippolytus u. Callistus, S. 100 f. 

1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 15. 5 I.e. c. 20. 

6 Cf. the note of Rigaltius on c. 45. 

Weitzel forcibly proves (S. 87), against Gieseler and Schwegler, that Bkstus 
was no Montanist. 



314 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

We thus reach the second period of the Paschal contro 
versy. In the first, we have seen the two customs of the 
Church the Johannean custom, and the usual one existing 
side by side, each of these opposing only the Ebionite party. 
Now, on the contrary, the two purely Christian opinions are 
to be found in violent conflict. It was probably Pope Victor 
who was the cause of the struggle : the intrigues of Blastus 
doubtless resulted in setting him against the Quartodecimans, 
and leading him to forbid the celebration of the feast on the 
14th Msan. In 196, S. Jerome s Chronicle says that he 
wrote to the most eminent bishops of every country, asking 
them to assemble synods in their provinces, and by their 
means to introduce the Western mode of celebrating Easter. 
These letters for example, those to Polycrates of Ephesus 
also contained threats in case of resistance. 1 Numerous 
synods therefore assembled, as we learn from Eusebius ; 2 and 
all, with the exception of those of Asia Minor, unanimously 
declared " that it was a rule of the Church to celebrate the 
mystery of the resurrection only on a Sunday." They ac 
quainted all the faithful with this declaration by synodical 
letters. 3 Eusebius 4 saw several of these synodical letters, 
especially those from the Synods of Palestine, presided over 
by Theophilus Bishop of Csesarea and Narcissus of Jeru 
salem ; also those from the bishops of Pontus, under Palma ; 
from the bishops of Gaul, under Irenasus ; from the bishops 
of Osrhoene ; and, finally, the private letter from Bacchylus 
Bishop of Corinth. 5 They unanimously pronounced in favour 
of Victor s opinion, except Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus. 
The latter had also been president of a synod composed of a 
great number of the bishops of his province. He said that 
all approved of the remarkable letter which he proposed to 
send to Pope Victor, which Eusebius has preserved. 6 In this 
letter he says, "We celebrate the true day, without adding 
or subtracting anything ;" and he appeals, in justification of 
his practice, as we have before seen, to the Apostle Philip, 
who died at Hierapolis, to S. John the Evangelist, to Poly- 

1 Cf. the answer of Polycrates to Victor, in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. 

2 Euseb. v. 23. 3 See above, upon these synods, sec. 2, and following. 
4 Euseb. I.e. s See above, the same section. 6 Euseb. v. 24. 



DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 315 

carp, and others, who all kept Easter on the fourteenth day 
after the new moon. Seven of his own relations had been 
bishops of Ephesus before him, and had observed the same 
custom. " As he had attained the age of sixty-five years, 
Polycrates no longer feared any threatening, he said, for he 
knew that we ought to obey God rather than men." 

Thereupon, says Eusebius, continuing his account, Pope 
Victor tried to excommunicate (aTrorefAvetv Treiparai) the 
Churches of Asia and of the neighbouring provinces ; and he 
addressed an encyclical letter to this effect to all the Chris 
tians of those countries. The words of Eusebius might also 
be understood to mean that Victor really launched a sentence 
of excommunication against these Churches, and they have 
been taken in this sense by the later Church historian So 
crates ; 2 but it is more correct to say, as Valesius has shown, 3 
chat the Pope thought of excommunicating the Asiatics, and 
that he was kept from carrying out the sentence especially 
by S. Irenreus. Eusebius says, indeed, " He tried to excom 
municate them." He adds : " This disposition of Victor did 
not please other bishops, who exhorted him rather to seek 
after peace. The letters in which they blame him are still 
extant." However, Eusebius gives only the letter of S. 
Irenseus, who, although born in Asia Minor, declared that 
the resurrection of the Saviour ought to be celebrated on a 
Sunday ; but also exhorted Victor not to cut off from com 
munion a whole group of Churches which only observed an 
ancient custom. He reminds him that his predecessors had 
judged this difference with much more leniency, and that, in 
particular, Pope Anicetus had discussed it amicably with 
Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. 4 

Eusebius here remarks, that Irenaeus, as his name indicates, 
had become eipijwrrotos, and that he addressed letters on this 
occasion, not only to Victor, but to other bishops. 5 

Thus this debate did not bring about the uniformity which 

1 See above, same section. 2 Socrat. v. 22. 

3 In his remarks upon Euseb. v. 24. 
* See above, at the commencement of this section. 

5 Cf. Teller, Pars actorum inter Asiaticas et reliquas Ecclesias super contro* 
verso sacrorum Paschatos tempore, Helmst. 1767. 



316 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Victor desired. However, as a consequence of these explana 
tions and negotiations, some Churches of Asia, it appears, 
renounced their custom, and adopted that of the West, as 
Massuet * and Valesius 2 have concluded from the letter pub 
lished by Constantino after the close of the Synod of Nicsea, 
in which he says : " Asia" (doubtless meaning some of its 
Churches), " Pontus, and Cilicia have adopted the universal 
custom." This can apply only to a part of Cilicia, seeing 
that, according to the testimony of S. Athanasius, the custom 
of the Quartodecimans prevailed there. 4 Thus up to this 
time the controversy bore only upon these two points : 1st, 
Was the festival to be held according to the day of the week, 
or that of the month ? 2d, When was the fast to cease ? 

But in the third century, which we have now reached, a 
fresh difficulty arose to complicate the debate, which we may 
call briefly the astronomical difficulty. 

We have seen that with the Asiatics, as with the Westerns, 
Easter was determined by the 14th Nisan, with this differ 
ence only, that the Asiatics always celebrated Easter on this 
day, whilst the Westerns kept it on the Sunday following 
(with them the Sunday of the resurrection was their greatest 
festival). But then this question arose : On what precise 
day of the year does the 14th Nisan fall ? or how can the 
lunar date of the 14th Nisan be reconciled with the solar 
year ? The Jews ecclesiastical year, the first month of which 
is called Nisan, commences in the spring. At the beginning 
of spring, and particularly towards the equinox, barley is 
ripe in Palestine. For this reason the month Nisan is also 
called the month of sheaves; and the great festival of the 
month Nisan, the passover, is at the same time the feast 
of harvest, in which the first sheaf of barley is offered to 
God as first-fruits. 5 According to this, the 14th Nisan comes 
almost at the same time with the full moon after the vernal 
equinox ; and although the lunar year of the Jews is shorter 

1 Opp. S. Ire iioeus, vol. ii. p. 73, n. 19. 

2 In his observations upon Euseb. v. 23. 3 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 19. 

4 Atlianas. Ep. ad Afros, c. 2 ; and de synodis Arimin. et Seleuc. c. 5, Opp. 
ed. Bened, Patav. t. i. P. ii. pp. 574, 713. Cf. above, p. 306. 
6 Ideler, Handbuc\ der Chronologie, Bd. i. S. 486, 487, 490. 



NKLEA : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 317 

than the solar year, they made up the difference by an inter 
calary month, so that the 14th Msan always occurred at the 
same period. 1 It was also partly determined by the ripeness 
of the barley. 

Many Fathers of the Church relied especially on the fact 
that the passover had always been kept by the ancient 
Hebrews, and by the contemporaries of our Saviour, after the 
equinox, 2 and so ordered that the festival should continue 
to be celebrated after the commencement of the spring. They 
remarked that the Jews had always determined the tS in 
this way until the fall of Jerusalem. The defective practice 
of not fixing the cB according to the equinox was not intro 
duced among them until after that event. 

We may see clearly what resulted from this rule. Who 
ever observed it, could no longer regulate his Easter according 
to the 1 4th Msan of the Jews, inasmuch as this day occurred 
after the equinox. If the 14th fell before the equinox with 
the Jews, the Christians ought to have said : " The Jews 
this year celebrate the 14th Nisan at a wrong date, a month 
too soon : it is not the full moon before, but the full moon 
after the equinox, which is the true full moon of Nisan." 
We say full moon, for the 14th Msan was always necessarily 
at the full moon, since each month among the Jews be^an 

* o o 

with the new moon. In this case the Christians kept their 
Easter a month later than the Jews, and determined it ac 
cording to the full moon after the vernal equinox. Hence 
it resulted 

1. That if a Johannean Quartodeciman 3 acted according to 
the equinox, he always celebrated his Easter exactly on the 
day of the full moon after the eqidnox, without minding on 
what day of the week it fell, or whether it coincided with 
the Jewish 14th of Nisan or not. 

2. That if a Western acted also according to the equinox, 
he always celebrated his Easter on the Sunday after the full 
moon which followed the vernal equinox. If the full moon 

1 Ideler, I.e. Bd. i. S. 488-490. 

2 Ideler, I.e. Bd. ii. S. 229 ; Weitzel, I.e. 208, 224. 

3 The Ebionite Quartodecimans acted entirely according to the Jewish man 
ner of computation at this period. 



n 



1 8 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



fell on a Sunday, he kept the festival not on that Sunday, 
but on the following one, and that because the day of the 
resurrection (consequently his Easter) ought to be observed 
not on the very day of the tS (being the day of Christ s 
death), but after the ^8 . 

We shall presently see that the latter manner of computa 
tion for regulating the celebration of the Easter festival was 
adopted by many, if not all, in the West ; but we cannot deter 
mine whether many of the Asiatics did the same. The seventh 
(eighth) of the so-called Apostolic Canons, besides, ordered 
Easter to be celebrated universally after the vernal equinox. 

When abandoning the way of Jewish computation, the 
Christians had naturally much more difficulty in determining 
the period of their Easter. It was necessary to make special 
calculations in order to know when Easter would fall; and 
the most ancient known calculation on this point is that of 
Hippolytus, a disciple of S. Irenseus, who was erroneously 
called Bishop of Pontus, but who was in fact a Koman priest 
at the commencement of the third century, and was opposition 
Bishop of Borne about the year 220 to 235. 1 Eusebius 2 says 
of him, that in his book upon Easter he makes a computa 
tion, and bases it upon a canon of sixteen years. Nothing 
more was known of this calculation or canon until in 1551, 
on the way to Tivoli, not far from the Church of S. Lawrence, 
there was discovered a marble statue of a bishop seated on 
his throne. It is at present in the Vatican Museum. It was 
recognised as the statue of Hippolytus, because a catalogue 
of the works of the bishop represented was inscribed upon 
che back of the throne. Upon the right side of the throne 
is a table of the Easter full moons, calculated for a period of 
a hundred and twelve years (from 222 to 333 after Christ). 
Upon the left side is a table of the Easter Sundays for the 
same period, and the calculation for both tables is based upon 
the cycle of sixteen years mentioned by Eusebius : so that, 
according to this calculation, after sixteen years, the Easter full 
moon falls on the same day of the month, and not of the week ; 
and after a hundred and twelve years it falls regularly on the 
same day of the month, and of the week also. Ideler justly 

i Photii BiUlotli. cod. 121 : Bellinger, I.e. S. 249. 2 Euseb. vi. 22. 



DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 319 

remarks that Hippolytus might have abridged his calculation 
one half, since according to it the full moon fell every eight 
years on the same day of the month, and that every fifty-six 
years it fell again on the same day of the month and of the 
week also. 1 

This point being settled, Hippolytus lays down the follow 
ing principles : 

1. The fast should not cease till the Sunday. This is 
expressly said in the inscription on the first table (engraven 
on the right side of the throne). 2 

2. It is thence established thcit it is the Sunday which 
<?ives the rule, that the communion feast must then be cele 
brated, and the day of Christ s death on the Friday. 

3. As Hippolytus always places the tS after the 18th 
March, doubtless he considered the 18th March as the 
equinox, and this day formed the basis of his Easter calcula 
tions. 

4. If the tS fell on a Friday, he would keep Good Friday 
on that day. If the 18 fell on a Saturday, he would not 
keep Easter on the following day, but put it off for a week 
(as occurred in the year 222). In the same way, if the i$ 
fell on a Sunday, it was not that day, but the following Sun 
day, which was his Easter day (for example, in 227). 

As Hippolytus was a disciple of S. Irenaeus, and one of 
the principal doctors of the Church of Eome, we may con 
sider his Easter calculation as exactly expressing the opinion 
of the Westerns, and especially of the Church of Eome, on 
the subject. 

The Church of Alexandria also did not celebrate Easter 
until after the equinox. The great Bishop Dionysius ex 
pressly says so in an Easter letter, now lost, which is men 
tioned by Eusebius. 3 According to him, Dionysius must also 
have published an Easter canon for eight years. At Alex 
andria, the city of astronomers, it would, besides, have been 
easy for Bishop Dionysius to make a more exact computation 
than that of Hippolytus, who had settled the question satis 
factorily for only a certain number of years. 4 

1 Ideler, I.e. Bd. ii. S. 222. 2 Cf. Weitzel, I.e. S. 200. 3 Euseb. vii. 20. 
* Ideler, Handb. der Chron. ii. 224 and 226. 



320 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

But Dionysius was in his turn surpassed by another Alex 
andrian Anatolius Bishop of Laodicea in Syria since 270, 
who wrote a work upon the feast of Easter, 1 a fragment of 
which has been preserved by Eusebius. 2 He discovered the 
Easter cycle of nineteen years, and began it with the year 
277, probably because in that year his calculation was 
established. 

1. Anatolius proceeds upon the principle that the ancient 
Jews did not celebrate the passover until after the equinox, 
and that consequently the Christian s Easter ought never to 
be kept until after the vernal equinox. 

2. He considers the 19th March as the 3 equinox. 

3. He says nothing about the old question relating to the 
fast, and the time when it should close; but evidently, as 
he was an Alexandrian, he followed the usual custom (and 
not that of Asia). 

This cycle of nineteen years was soon subjected to different 
modifications, after which it was generally adopted in Alex 
andria from the time of Diocletian. The chief modification 
was, that the Alexandrians placed the equinox not on the 19th, 
but on the 21st March, which was tolerably exact for that 
period. Besides, when the i$ fell on a Saturday, they de 
parted from the systems of Anatolius and Hippolytus, and 
celebrated Easter on the following day, as we do now. 4 The 
completion of this cycle of nineteen years is attributed to 
Eusebius of Csesarea. 5 

Such was the state of the question at the commencement 
of the fourth century. It shows us that the differences in the 
time for the celebration of Easter were at that time greater 
than ever. 

The introduction of the question about the equinox had 
added fresh differences to the three former ones. Not only 
did some of the Asiatics 6 continue the Jewish calculation 
then in use, so that their Easter might fall before the equinox ; 

1 Enseb. vii. 32, 33. 

2 Cf. Ideler, I.e. ii. 227 if., and the annotations (chiefly erroneous) "by Peta- 
vius on Epiph. Hceres. 51, vol. ii. p. 188 sc[q. 

3 Ideler, ii. 228. 4 Ideler, ii. 220, 234. 
6 Ideler, ii. 232. Weitzel, I.e. 236. 



NIOEA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 321 

but some of the Westerns, not consulting the last astrono 
mical calculations, also celebrated their Easter before the 
equinox. 

Like the Asiatics, the Western Quartodecimans, who did 
not consider the equinox at all, often celebrated Easter earlier 
than the rest of Christendom, and therefore called themselves 
Protopaschites. But also among the Equinoctialists themselves 
there existed some difference : for the Alexandrians calculated 
Easter according to the cycle of nineteen years, and took the 
21st March as the date of the equinox; whilst the Eomans, 
as they followed Hippolytus, observed the cycle of sixteen 
years (subsequently that of eighty-four years), and placed the 
equinox on the 18th March. 1 When the full moon occurred 
on the 19th March, it was considered by the Latins the 
Easter full moon, and they celebrated their festival on the 
following Sunday ; whilst with the Alexandrians this full 
moon was before the equinox, and consequently they waited 
for another full moon, and celebrated their Easter a month 
after the clay considered right by the Latins. 

These serious and numerous differences were indeed very 
lamentable, and were the cause of many disputes and frequent 
troubles in countries where these different modes simulta 
neously existed. They often made the Christians an object of 
the most bitter ridicule on the part of the heathen. 2 Indeed, 
the Council of Aries perfectly responded to the exigencies of 
the times, when in 314 it endeavoured to establish unanimity 
upon this question. This Synod commanded in its very first 
canon, that henceforth Easter should be celebrated uno die et 
imo tempore per omnem orbem, and that, according to custom, 
the Pope should send letters everywhere on this subject. 3 
The Synod therefore wished to make the Eoman mode pre 
dominant, and to suppress every other, even the Alexandrian 
(supposing that the difference between the Alexandrian and 
the Eoman calculation was known to the bishops at Aries). 

But the ordinances of Aries were not accepted everywhere, 
and they failed to establish uniformity in the Church. The 
decision of an oecumenical council became necessary ; and, in 

1 Meier, I.e. ii. 247, 252. 2 Epiph. Hceres. 70. 14 ; Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 5, 
3 Mansi, Collect. Cone. ii. 471 ; Hard. i. 263. See above, p. 184. 

X 



322 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

fact, the first (Ecumenical Council of Nicsea was occupied with 
this business. We are ignorant of the detailed debates on 
this subject, knowing only the result as we find it in the 
encyclical letter of the Council, 1 and in the Emperor s circular. 2 

In the former document, the Council thus addresses the 
Church of Alexandria, and its well-beloved brethren in Egypt, 
Libya, and Pentapolis : " We give you good news of the unity 
which has been established respecting the holy passover. In 
fact, according to your desire, we have happily elucidated this 
business. All the brethren in the East who formerly cele 
brated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at the 
same time as the Eomans, with us, and with all those who 
from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time 
with us." 3 . . 

The Emperor Constantine made the following announce 
ment in his letter to all who were not present at the Council : 

" When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter 
arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient 
that all should keep the feast on one day ; for what could be 
more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, 
through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated 
by all with one accord, and in the same manner ? It was 
declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of 
all festivals, to follow the custom (the calculation) of the 
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of 
crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their 
custom, 4 we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate 
mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the 
time of the Saviour s Passion to the present day (according to 
the day of the week). We ought not therefore to have any 
thing in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown 
us another way : our worship follows a more legitimate and 
more convenient course (the order of the days of the week) ; 
and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we 

1 Socrates, Hist. Eccles. i. 9. 

2 Socrates, I.e. ; Tlieodoret, Hist. Eccl i. 10 ; Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 17. 

3 Socrates, i. 9. 

4 We must read i&ov;, not i&vws, as the Mainz impression of the edition of 
Yalerius has it. 



KTC/EA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 323 

desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detest 
able company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to 
hear them boast that without their direction we could not 
keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, 
after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by 
reason, but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge 
them ? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question ; 
for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, 
they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. 1 
We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, 
then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly 
blinded by error ? for to celebrate the passover twice in one 
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it 
would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by com 
munications with such wicked people (the Jews). Besides, 
consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a 
subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any 
division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our 
redemption, that is to say, of His holy passion, and He desired 
(to establish) only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how 
unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting, 
whilst others are seated at a banquet ; 2 and that after Easter, 
some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still ob 
serving a strict fast. 3 For this reason, Divine Providence 

1 "When the $ fell before the equinox, the Jews kept the passover also before 
the equinox ; but as the new solar year had not then commenced, the Jews had 
celebrated two passovsrs in the course of one solar year (from one spring to 
another). 

2 Supposing the i% fell on a Friday, the Ebionite Quartodeciman celebrated 
the feast of the passover on that day, but the Catholics regarded the day as a 
rigorous fast. But even among the orthodox it was possible that some should 
be fasting while others were feasting. The Johannean Quartodecimans (see 
above, p. 313) finished their fast on the $ at midnight, and thus it might be on 
Thursday, whilst the "Westerns continued their fast till Sunday. Finally, the 
Westerns, or followers of the ordinary custom, were not at one among themselves. 
Those, for instance, as the Protopaschites, who paid no regard to the equinox, 
or who placed it on a wrong day, might have (as we have seen, p. 321) their 
Easter feast and fast about a month earlier than the others, and consequently 
were fasting while these were feasting, and their fast was long past when it was 
beginning with the others. 

3 When, e,g., the Protopaschites had celebrated their Easter, their fast was at 
an end, while the Equinoctialists still had their fast. Besides, the Johannean 
and Ebionite Quartodecimans ended their fast and had their Easter on the <$ 



324 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a 
uniform way ; and every one, I hope, will agree upon this 
point. As, on the one hand, it is our duty not to have any 
thing in common with the murderers of our Lord, and as, on 
the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the 
West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of 
the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all, 
and I have been guarantee for your consent, that you would 
accept it with joy, as it is followed at Koine, in Africa, in all 
Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia,and in the 
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider 
not only that the number of churches in these provinces make 
a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our 
reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common 
with the Jews. To sum up in few words : by the unanimous 
judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival 
of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the 
same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there 
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, 
accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine com 
mand ; for all which takes place in assemblies of the bishops 
ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God. 
Make known to your brethren what has been decreed, keep 
this most holy day according to the prescribed mode ; we can 
thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is 
granted me, as I desire, to unite myself with you ; we can 
rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use 
of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the 
devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish 
amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved 
brethren." 

We find no further details in the acts. But it is easy to 
understand that the Fathers of the Council took as the basis 
of their decision the computation which was most generally 
admitted among orthodox Christians, that is, the one which 
regulated the iS according to the equinox, and Easter Sunday 

and consequently might feast whilst the "Westerns continued their fast to the 
Sunday. 
1 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 18-20. 



KIC/EA : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 325 

according to the tS . We have a letter of Constantine s upon 
this point, which clearly shows the mind of the Council ; for, 
according to this letter, the Synod requires, 1st, that Easter clay 
should always be a Sunday (and therefore decides against the 
Quartodecimans) ; and 2d, that it should never be celebrated 
at the same time as the feast of the Jews. It results from this 
second decision, that according to the Synod, if the iS should 
fall on a Sunday, Easter was not to be celebrated on that 
Sunday, but a week later. And this for two reasons : (1) 
Because the iS indicates the day of the Saviour s death, and 
that the festival of the resurrection ought to follow that day, 
and not to coincide with it ; (2) because in those years when 
the should fall on a Sunday, Christians would be celebrat 
ing their Easter at the same time as the Jews, which was what 
the Synod wished to avoid. The third decision made at Nicsea 
was (3) to forbid Christians to celebrate Easter twice in one 
year ; that is to say, that the equinox should be considered in 
all calculations about Easter. 

In my opinion, there is no doubt that Constantine, in his 
letter, which has every appearance of being a synodical letter, 
mentioned only the decisions really arrived at by the Council. 
This indubitable fact being once admitted, it must certainly 
be acknowledged also that the Synod was right in giving 
rules for determining Easter day. Perhaps it did not explain 
expressly the principles which formed the basis of the three 
decisions given above, but undoubtedly all these decisions 
showed them sufficiently. When Ideler maintains 1 " that 
the rule clearly enunciated in S. Epiphanius 2 had not been 
expressly prescribed by the Council of Mcasa," this opinion has 
no foundation, unless Ideler plays upon the word expressly ; 
for Epiphanius gives, as the basis of his computation, the 
same three rules already laid down by the Mcene Council 
and in the letter of Constantine, the observation of the 
Equinox, placing the (,& after the equinox, and placing the 
Sunday after the iS . Ideler appears to me to have too easily 
accepted the theories in the second book of Christian Walch s 
Decreti Nicceni de Pasckale explicatio, which are opposed to our 
opinions. 

1 Ideler, ii. 207. 2 Epiph. Hcer. 50. 3 and 70. 11. 



326 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

It may be asked whether the Council intended to give the 
preference to the Roman computation, against the Alex 
andrian. Both rested upon the three rules accepted by the 
Council; but the Romans considered the 18th March, and 
the Alexandrians the 21st March, as the terminus a quo of 
the Easter full moon. According to Ideler, our Synod did 
not take much notice of this difference, and seemed indeed 
to entirely ignore it. 1 The acts of the Council, in fact, do 
not show that it knew of this difference. The tenor of Con- 
stantine s letter seems to authorize the opinion expressed by 
Ideler. The synodical letter indeed says: "In future, all 
shall celebrate Easter with the Romans, with us, and with 
all," etc. ; and Constantine supposes that the manner of cele 
brating Easter among the Romans and the Egyptians, and 
consequently among the Alexandrians, is identical. 2 How 
ever, the great importance of the Easter question, and the 
particular value which it had at the time of the Mcene 
Council, hardly allow it to be supposed that the differences 
between the Roman and Alexandrian computations should 
not have been known in such a large assemblage of learned 
men, among whom were Romans and Alexandrians. It is. 
much more rational to admit that these differences were well 
known, but that they were passed over without much discus 
sion. To act thus was indeed an absolute necessity, if they 
wished to arrive at complete uniformity upon the Easter ques 
tion ; and what we are now saying is not a pure hypothesis,, 
for Cyril of Alexandria says : " The General Synod has unani 
mously decreed that, since the Church of Alexandria is ex 
perienced in such sciences, she should announce by letter 
every year to the Roman Church the day on which Easter 
should be celebrated, so that the whole Church might then 
learn the time for the festival through apostolical authority 
(i.e. of the Bishop of Rome). 3 

Pope Leo. I. expresses himself in the same way in his letter 

1 Ideler, ii. 238. 2 See above, pp. 323, 324. 

3 The Prologus PascJialls of Cyril, in which this passage is found, no longer 
exists, except in Latin. It was edited by Petavius (Doctrina Tempor. vol. ii. 
Append, p. 502) and by Bucherius (Doctrina Tempor. p. 481), and commented 
upon by Van der Hagen (Observationes in Prolog, p. 41). Cf. Ideler, ii. 258 f. 






NIC7EA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 327 

to the Emperor Marcian. He says : " Studuerunt Hague sancti 
Patrcs" (he certainly understands by that the Fathers of 
Mcsea, though he does not expressly say so) " occasionem 
liujus erroris auferre, omnem hanc cur am Alexandrine cpis- 
copo delegantes (guoniam apud JEgyptios liujus supputationis 
antiquities tradita esse videbatur pcritia), per quern qicotannis 
dies prccdictce solemnitatis Scdi apostolicce indicaretur, cujus 
scriptis ad longinqidores JScclesias indicium generate percur- 
reret" If Pope Leo is in the right, this text teaches us 
two things : (1) That the Synod of Mcsea gave the prefer 
ence to the Alexandrian computation over the Eoman, whilst 
the contrary had been decreed at Aries ; (2) That the Synod 
found a very good way of smoothing difficulties, by ordaining 
that the Alexandrian Church should announce the day for 
Easter to the Church of Eome, and that Eome should make 
it known to the whole Church. 

Another account taken from S. Ambrose agrees very well 
with what S. Leo says. S. Ambrose tells us, indeed, that 
according to the advice of several mathematicians, the Synod 
of Mcsea adopted the cycle of nineteen years. 2 Now this is 
the Alexandrian cycle; and in fact, in charging the Church 
of Alexandria to tell the day for Easter every year to the 
Church of Eome, it adopted the Alexandrian cycle. 3 

Dupin therefore took useless trouble when he tried to prove 
that the Fathers of Mcsea had simply given occasion for the 
adoption of this canon. 4 The Benedictine editions of the 
works of S. Ambrose have also weakened the meaning of 

o 

the words of S. Ambrose, by making him say that the Mcene 
Fathers had indeed mentioned this cycle, but that they had 
not positively ordered it to be used. 5 

It is rather remarkable that the Synod should not have 
placed its decision as to the celebration of the festival of 
Easter among its canons. None of the canons of the Council, 
not even those of doubtful authenticity, treat of this subject. 

1 Ep. 121 (alias 94), ed. Bailer, i. 1228. 

2 Ep. ad Episcopos per JSmiUam. ; Op. ii. 880. Cf. Ideler, ii. 211. 

3 Ideler, ii. 212. 

4 Dnpin, Nouvelle Bibliothkque des auteurs eccl. ii. 316, ed. Paris 1693. 

Dionysius the Less expresses himself like S. Ambrose. Cf. Ideler, ii. 212. 



328 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Perhaps the Synod wished to conciliate those who were not 
ready to give up immediately the customs of the Quarto- 
decimans. It refused to anathematize a practice which had 
been handed down from apostolic times in several orthodox 
Churches. 1 

The differences in the way of fixing the period of Easter 
did not indeed disappear after the Council of Mcsea. Alex 
andria and Eome could not agree, either because one of the 
two Churches neglected to make the calculation for Easter, or 
because the other considered it inaccurate. It is a fact, proved 
by the ancient Easter table of the Eoman Church, 2 that the 
cycle of eighty-four years continued to be used at Eome as 
before. Now this cycle differed in many ways from the 
Alexandrian, and did not always agree with it about the 
period for Easter. In fact, (a) the Eomans used quite another 
method from the Alexandrians : they calculated from the epact, 
and began from the feria prima of January. 3 (/3) The Eomans 
were mistaken in placing the full moon a little too soon; 
whilst the Alexandrians placed it a little too late. 4 (7) At 
Eome the equinox was supposed to fall on the 18th March; 
whilst the Alexandrians placed it on the 21st March. (8) 
Einally, the Eomans differed in this from the Greeks also : 
they did not celebrate Easter the next day when the full 
moon fell on the Saturday. 

Even the year following the Council of ISTicsea that is, in 
326 as well as in the years 330, 333, 340, 341, 343, the 
Latins celebrated Easter on a different day from the Alex 
andrians. 5 In order to put an end to this misunderstanding, 
the Synod of Sardica in 343, as we learn from the newly- 
discovered festival letters of S. Athanasius, 6 took up again the 
question of Easter, and brought the two parties (Alexandrians 
and Eomans) to regulate, by means of mutual concessions, a 
common day for Easter for the next fifty years. 7 This com 
promise, after a few years, was not observed. The troubles 
excited by the Arian heresy, and the division which it caused 
between the East and the West, prevented the decree of 

1 Ideler, ii. 204. 2 Ideler, ii. 249 ff. 3 Ideler, ii. 245 f. 

4 Ideler, ii. 240, 277. 5 Ideler, ii. 253. 6 They are edited by Larsovr, 

7 Of tliis again, further on, in the history of the Synod of Sardica. 



NIC7EA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 329 

Sardica from being put into execution ; therefore the Emperor 
Theodosius the Great, after the re-establishment of peace in 
the Church, found himself obliged to take fresh steps for 
obtaining a complete uniformity in the manner of celebrating 
Easter. In 387, the Eomans having kept Easter on the 
21st March, the Alexandrians did not do so for five weeks 
later that is to say, till the 25th April because with the 
Alexandrians the equinox was not till the 21st March. 
The Emperor Theodosius the Great then asked Theophilus 
Bishop of Alexandria for an explanation of the difference. 
The bishop responded to the Emperor s desire, and drew up 
a chronological table of the Easter festivals, based upon the 
principles acknowledged by the Church of Alexandria. Un 
fortunately, we now possess only the prologue of his work. 1 

Upon an invitation from Eome, S. Ambrose also men 
tioned the period of this same Easter in 387, in his letter to 
the bishops of ^Emilia, and he sides with the Alexandrian 
computation. Cyril of Alexandria abridged the paschal table 
of his uncle Theophilus, and fixed the time for the ninety- 
five following Easters, that is, from 436 to 531 after Christ. 2 
Besides this, Cyril showed, in a letter to the Pope, what was 
defective in the Latin calculation ; and this demonstration was 
taken up again, some time after, by order of the Emperor, by 
Paschasinus Bishop of Lilybseum and Proterius of Alexandria, 
in a letter written by them to Pope Leo i. 3 In consequence 
of these communications, Pope Leo often gave the preference 
to the Alexandrian computation, instead of that of the Church 
of Rome. 4 At the same time also was generally established, 
the opinion so little entertained by the ancient authorities of 
the Church one might even say, so strongly in contradiction 
to their teaching that Christ partook of the passover on the 
14th Nisan, that He died on the 15th (not on the 14th, as 
the ancients considered), that He lay in the grave on the 1 6th, 
and rose again on the 17th. In the letter we have just 
mentioned, Proterius of Alexandria openly admitted all these 
different points. 

Some years afterwards, in 457, Victor of Aquitaine, by 

1 Meier, ii. 254. 2 Meier, ii. 259. 

3 Meier, ii. 264-267. 4 Meier, ii. 265, 



330 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

order of the Eoman Archdeacon Hilary, endeavoured to make 
the Eoman and the Alexandrian calculations agree together. 
It has heen conjectured that subsequently Hilary, when Pope, 
brought Victor s calculation into use, in 456, that is, at the 
time when the cycle of eighty-four years came to an end. 1 
In the latter cycle the new moons were marked more accu 
rately, and the chief differences existing between the Latin and 
Greek calculations disappeared ; so that the Easter of the Latins 
generally coincided with that of Alexandria, or was only a 
very little removed from it. In cases when the i& fell on a 
Saturday, Victor did not wish to decide whether Easter should 
be celebrated the next day, as the Alexandrians did, or should 
be postponed for a week. He indicates both dates in his 
table, and leaves the Pope to decide what was to be done in 
each separate case. 2 Even after Victor s calculations, there 
still remained great differences in the manner of fixing the 
celebration of Easter ; and it was Dionysius the Less who first 
completely overcame them, by giving to the Latins a paschal 
table having as its basis the cycle of nineteen years. This 
cycle perfectly corresponded to that of Alexandria, and thus 
established that harmony which had been so long sought in 
vain. He showed the advantages of his calculation so strongly, 
that it was admitted by Kome and by the whole of Italy; 3 whilst 
almost the whole of Gaul remained faithful to Victor s canon, 
and Great Britain still held the cycle of eighty-four years, a 
little improved by Sulpicius Severus. 4 When the Heptarchy 
was evangelized by the Eoman missionaries, the new converts 
accepted the calculation of Dionysius, whilst the ancient 
Churches of Wales held fast their old tradition. From this 
arose the well-known British dissensions about the celebra 
tion of- Easter, which were transplanted by Columban into 
Gaul 5 In 729, the majority of the ancient British Churches 
accepted the cycle of nineteen years. 6 It had before been 
introduced into Spain, immediately after the conversion of 
Eeccared. Finally, under Charles the Great, the cycle of nine- 

1 Ideler, ii. 284. * Ideler, ii. 283. 

3 Ideler, ii. 293. * Ideler, ii. 296. 

5 See the article Columban in Kirchenlex. by Wetzer and Welte, Bd. ii, 

6 Ideler, ii. 297. 



NIC/EA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 331 

teen years triumphed over all opposition ; and thus the whole 
of Christendom was united, for the Quartodeciinans had gra 
dually disappeared. 1 

Before returning to the Quartodecimans, we will here add 
some details for the completion of what has been said on the 
Easter question. In ancient times, the entire duration of a 
year was calculated erroneously. Thus it happened by degrees, 
that the equinox, instead of falling on the 21st March as 
announced by the calendar, really fell on the llth March of 
the calendar then in use. The calculations upon the lunar 
months also contained many errors. For this reason, in 1582, 
Pope Gregory xm. introduced a calendar improved by Alois 
Lilius of Calabria, by the Jesuit Clavius, and others. The 
improvements of this calendar were : 1st, That the morrow of 
the 4th October 1582 was counted as the 15th October, and 
the calendar was thus made to agree with astronomical cal 
culations ; 2d, The Easter full moon was calculated much more 
accurately than before, and rules were established for the 
future prevention of the difficulties which had been previously 
experienced. Every fourth year was to be leap year, with the 
exception of the secular year (i.e. the year at the end of the 
century) ; yet even in this case, in four secular years, one 
was to be leap year. Thus the years 1600 and 2000 are 
leap years, whilst the years 1*700 and 1800 and 1900 are 
not so. 2 

The Gregorian Calendar from this time came into use in all 
Catholic countries. The Greek Church would not admit it. 
Protestants accepted it in 1775, after long hesitation and 
much dissension. 3 In the time of Gregory xm. the difference 
between the calendar and the real astronomical year was ten 
days ; if this calendar had not been changed, it would have been 
eleven days in 1700, and twelve in 1800 : for this reason 
the Eussians with their Julian Calendar are now twelve days 
behind us. 4 But even the Gregorian Calendar itself is not 

1 Meier, ii. 298. 2 Ideler, ii. 303. 3 Ideler, ii. 325. 

4 With us indeed, the years 1700 and 1800 were not leap years, which they 
were according to the Julian Calendar. There are therefore altogether twelve 
days of difference between the two calculations. By not counting the years 
1700 and 1800 as leap years, an entire agreement has been established between 
the Gregorian Calendar and the real astronomical year. 



332 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

quite exact; for, according to the calculations of Lalande, 
which are now generally admitted, the duration of a tropical 
year is shorter by 24 seconds than the Gregorian Calendar, 
so that after 3600 years it would differ by one day from the 
astronomical year. 1 Besides this, the Gregorian Calendar has 
not fixed the months with perfect accuracy. A somewhat de 
fective cycle was selected on account of its greater simplicity ; 
so that, astronomically speaking, the Easter full moon may 
rise two hours after the time calculated by the calendar : thus, 
it might be at one o clock on the Sunday morning, whilst an 
nounced by the calendar for eleven o clock on Saturday night. 
In this case Easter would be celebrated on that same Sunday, 
when it ought to be on the following Sunday. 

We remark, finally, that the Gregorian Calendar occasionally 
makes our Christian Easter coincide with the Jewish passover, 
as for instance in 1825. 2 This coincidence is entirely con 
trary to the spirit of the Mcene Council ; but it is impossible 
to avoid it, without violating the rule for finding Easter which 
is now universally adopted. 

SEC. 38. TJie later Quartodecimans. 

The Council of Mcaea was to find more difficulty in the 
East than in the West in establishing complete uniformity in 
the celebration of Easter. Without regard to the synodical 
decisions, many Quartodecimans continued to celebrate Easter 
according to their old custom. The Synod of Antioch in 341 
was even obliged to threaten them with ecclesiastical penal 
ties if they did not adopt the common rules. It did so in 
these words, in its first canon : " All those who do not observe 
the decision respecting the holy festival of Easter made by the 
holy and great Synod of Mcsea, assembled in the presence of 
the most pious Emperor Constantine, are to be excommuni 
cated and cut off from the Church if they continue obstinate 
in rejecting the legal rule." The preceding refers to the 
laity. But if a pastor of the Church, a bishop, priest, or 
deacon, acted contrary to this decree, and ventured, to the 
great scandal of the people, and at the risk of troubling the 
Church, to Judaize, and to celebrate Easter with the Jews, 

1 Meier, ii. 305. 2 Ideler, ii. 320. 



NIC.EA : THE LATER QUARTODECIMANS. 

the Synod considered him as no longer forming part of the 
Church, seeing that he not only bore the weight of his own 
sin, but that he was also guilty of the fall of several others. 
This clergyman is by the very fact itself deposed ; and not he 
alone, but also all those who continue to go to him after his 
deposition. Such as are deposed have no longer any right to 
any of the outward honour given them by the sacred office 
with which they were invested. 1 

These threatenings were not entirely successful. On the 
contrary, we learn from S. Epiphanius 2 that in his time, about 
the year 400 after Christ, there were still many Quartodeci- 
mans, and that they were even disagreed among themselves. 
As to their faith, they are orthodox, said S. Epiphanius ; 3 but 
they hold too much to Jewish fables, i.e. they observe the 
Jewish Easter, and build upon the passage : " Cursed is he 
who does not celebrate his passover on the 14th Msan." 
All that we know respecting these Quartodecimans may be 
summed up as follows : 

a. They celebrate one day only, whilst the Catholic Easter 
lasts for a whole week. 5 

1}. On that day, the day of the 18, they fast, and they 
communicate : they fast till three o clock, consequently not a 
whole day ; which S. Epiphanius 6 disapproves. 

c. One party among them (in Cappadocia) always cele 
brated Easter on the 25th March, on whatever day of the 
week it might fall, according to the (apocryphal) Ada Pilati, 
which says that Jesus Christ died on the 25th March. 7 

d. Others did not for that reason abandon the 14th 
Nisan, but hoped to make the two dates agree, by celebrating 
their Easter on the day of the full moon immediately follow 
ing the 25th March. 8 

According to this, the Quartodecimans of S. Epiphanius 
fall into three classes, one of which abandons the tS , and con 
sequently separates itself considerably from the Jews. It is 

1 Mansi, Collect. Condi, ii. 1307 sq_. 2 Epiph. Hceres. 50. 

3 Epiph. c. 1. 

4 Ex. xii. 15. These exact words do not anywhere occur. They are a kind 
of summary of the requirements of the law. ED. 

5 Epiph. Hceres. 50, c. 1. 6 Epiph. c. 2. 

7 Epiph. c. 1. 8 Weitzel, I.e. S. 242, 249. 



334 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

impossible to determine whether the other classes followed 
the ancient or the new method of the Jews in their calcula 
tion for Easter ; but the praise which S. Epiphanius gives 
them for their orthodoxy proves that they were not Ebionites, 
but that they were attached to the Johannean tradition 
which was for a long time prevalent in Asia Minor. 

SEC. 39. The Audians. 

The Audians, or Odians, 1 are a remarkable branch of the 
Quartodecimans : they lived in cloisters, and followed the rules 
of the monastic life. Their foundation was derived from a 
certain Audius of Mesopotamia, about the time of the Synod 
of Nicsea. Audius had become celebrated by the severity of 
his asceticism; and Epiphanius, who mentions him in his 
History of Heretics? treats him with all possible favour, so 
much so that the ascetic with whom he sympathizes makes 
him almost forget the schismatic. Audius, he says, 3 had cen 
sured the abuses which had been introduced into the Church, 
particularly the luxury and avarice of several of the bishops 
and clergy, and had therefore brought upon himself much 
hatred and persecution. He had borne all with patience, 
when finally the blows and unworthy treatment of which he 
was the object, forced him, so to speak, to excommunicate 
himself, and together with a few partisans, among whom were 
found some bishops and priests, to form a particular sect. 

As for the rest, adds Epiphanius, he had certainly not 
fallen from the true faith : at most, he could be accused only 
of having expressed and maintained a singular opinion upon 
a point of small importance. Like several ancient doctors, 
e.g. Melito, Audius anthropomorphically considered the resem 
blance of man to God to be in the body, an opinion which 
S. Epiphanius has refuted in a rather long dissertation. 4 
Before beginning the refutation of Audius, Epiphanius relates 
that this ascetic was consecrated bishop after he left the 
Church, by a bishop who had left the Church with him. He 

1 Called also Audseans. See Epiph. Ilcer. 70 ; Aug. de Hares. 50. Cf. 
Walch, iii. 300-321. ED. 

2 Epiph an. Hceres. 70. * I.e. c. 1. 
4 Epiph. Hceres. 70, c. 2-S inclusive. 



NIO-EA : THE AUDIANS. 335 

adds that the Audians lived by the work of their hands, and 
that their whole life was truly praiseworthy. 1 

According to Epiphanius, the second difference between the 
Audians and the Church was about the celebration of the 
festival of Easter. From the ninth chapter S. Epiphanius 
seeks to express very explicitly what he understands by this 
difference, but his exposition is not clear. 

The Audians set out from this fundamental principle : 
Easter must be celebrated at the same time (but not in the 
same manner) as with the Jews. This practice had been that 
of the primitive Church ; and it was only from consideration 
for the Emperor Constantino, and in order to celebrate his 
birthday, that it had been abolished at Mcsea. Epiphanius 
refutes this last accusation of the Audians, by showing that, 
according to the rules of Nicsea, Easter could not always fall 
on the same day of the month : therefore it could not always 
fall on the Emperor s birthday. 2 

To support their manner of celebrating Easter, Epiphanius 
says, 3 that the Audians quoted a sacred book, Btard^e^ r&v 
a7TO(iTo\<av. This book, we see, bears the same title as our 
so-called Apostolic Constitutions ; but the fragments of it given 
by S. Epiphanius are not to be found in our text of the 
Apostolic Constitutions, and especially upon the Easter ques 
tion they disagree with the contents of these Constitutions. 
S. Epiphanius spares no praise of the orthodoxy of these 
&arae? : he even finds that as to discipline it is quite 
conformed to the custom of the Church. Only the Audians 
interpret it erroneously in what concerns the celebration of 
the Easter festival. The apostles in these Siarafei? give the 
following rule : " You (that is, you Gentile Christians) ought 
to celebrate Easter at the same time as your brethren who 
have been Jews (1/c Trepiroyu,?}?)/ The apostles meant : You 
ought to act like the rest of the faithful ; whilst the Audians 
interpreted their words thus : You ought to celebrate Easter 
with the Jews (pi ev Treptro//,?}). If, however, the apostolic 
rule meant, in a general way, that they ought to celebrate 
Easter with other Christians, Epiphanius concludes with 

1 Epiph. Hceres. 70, c. 2. 2 Epipli. Hceres. 70, c. 9. 

3 Epipli. Hceres. 70, c. 10. 4 Epipli. Ilceres. 70. 1C, 



336 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

reason that the Audians ought now to bow to the commands 
of the Council of Mcsea ; for in speaking thus, the <Waf 9 
had in view the unity and uniformity of the Church. S. 
Epiphanius proves that the Sund^ei? really only desired unity, 
and that they gave no directory of their own for the keeping 
of the festival. He quotes the following passage in support of 
his sentiments : " Even if those whose manner of celebrating 

c? 

Easter you have adopted should be mistaken in their views, 
you ought not to regard it." The hardl-ei? did not therefore 
intend to prescribe the best and most correct practice, but to 
induce the minority to follow the majority ; and as Christians 
who had been Jew,3 formed this majority, they recommended 
Jewish practice for the establishment of unity. 1 

Up to this S. Epiphanius is clear and intelligible ; but what 
follows is full of difficulties, many of which are perhaps in 
soluble. Here is all that we can say with any certainty about 
these riddles of CEdipus, as Petavius calls them in his notes 
upon Epiphanius. 2 

To prove to the Audians that they should follow the sense 
and not the letter of the Siarafet?, he seeks to show that, 
taken in a literal sense, the text contains contradictions. In 
proof, he gives the following passage in the eleventh chapter : 
" Whilst the Jews have their festival of joy (the passover), 
you should weep and fast on their account, because it was 
on the day of this feast that they nailed the Saviour to the 
cross. And when they weep and eat unleavened bread with 
bitter herbs, you should celebrate your festival of joy." 
Now, as the Jews held this festival on a Sunday, it would 
follow, according to the Siardgeis, that Christians should 
weep and fast on the Sunday. But this is forbidden, and 
the Siardj;eis themselves say, " Cursed be he who fasts on 
the Sunday." Here there is a manifest contradiction ; and, 
looked at closely, there is even a double contradiction : for, 
1st, It is commanded to fast, and yet not to fast on the 
Sunday ; and 2d, This precept is in opposition to the 
other, which the Audians pretend to draw from the Siardgeis, 
namely, that they ought to celebrate Easter with the Jews. 
Thus, says Epiphanius, the Starafa?;, according to the opinion 
1 Epiph. I.e. c. 10 and 14. 2 Vol. ii. p. 297. 



THE AUDIANS. 337 

of tlie Audians on the one side, require Easter to be kept 
with the Jews ; and on the other, they require Christians to 
do the contrary of what the Jews do. S. Epiphanius then 
tries to smooth this difficulty about the literal sense, and does 
it in the following way : " When the Jews celebrate their 
feast after the equinox, you may do so at the same time as 
they ; but if, according to their new and wrong reckoning, 
they celebrate it before the equinox, you should not imitate 
them : for in that case there would be two celebrations of 
Easter in the same year." 

S. Epiphanius having this solution in mind, had already 
made allusion to it at the beginning of the eleventh chapter, 
by remarking that Easter was calculated according to the 
sun, the equinox, and the moon, whilst the Jews paid no 
attention to the equinox. By this remark he interrupts his 
demonstration of the contradictions contained in the Siardgeis. 
He had said, indeed, at the end of the tenth chapter : " Even 
the terms (the terms of the Siardf; ?) contain a contradiction, 
for they contain the command to observe the fast of the vigil 
during the time of the feast of unleavened bread (jj,ea-a$vTO)v 
TWV avfj,a)v). Now, according to ecclesiastical calculation, 
that is not possible every year." With Petavius, I think 
that Epiphanius here simply says the same as in the eleventh 
chapter : " When the Jews feast, we should fast ; but the 
repast of the Jews often takes place on the Sabbath, during 
which day it is forbidden to fast." The meaning, then, of 
the words quoted above is this : " They demand that we 
should fast on the day of the feast of unleavened bread, that 
is, on the day of the 18 (peaat;. aC,. = during the time of 
unleavened bread). But, according to the Church calendar, 
that is not always possible, because sometimes the 18 falls 
on a Sunday." I regard, then, the last words of the tenth 
chapter as merely announcing the contradiction which is 
afterwards shown in the eleventh chapter. Weitzel gives 
another meaning to these words :* " The vigil of Easter (be 
fore the festival of the resurrection) should always fall in 
the middle of the week of unleavened bread, which is not 
always possible, according to the ecclesiastical calculation." 

1 Die christliche Passafeier, S. 258. 
Y 



338 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

It is quite true that this coincidence could not always take 
place according to the calculation of Nicsea ; but it would 
have been of no use for Epiphanius to appeal to the Council 
of Nicaea, as it was no authority to the Audians. With 
them, on the contrary, the eve of the festival of the resurrec 
tion always fell about the middle of the week of unleavened 
bread, that is to say, at the end of the second day. Besides, 
the connection between the tenth and eleventh chapters, and 
the line of argument of S. Epiphanius, render necessary the 
explanation which we have given of this passage. 

In bringing forward these contradictions of the Siard^eis, 
S. Epiphanius simply wished to refute the exaggerated Quarto- 
decimanism of the Audians ; but he does not mean to say 
that these same Audians followed all these principles of the 
Siardgeis. He does not say, " You celebrate Easter with 
the Jews, and you fast when they are eating the passover." 
On the contrary, it appears that they were ignorant of these 
further requirements of the Siardgeis ; for Epiphanius does 
not in the least reproach them with acting in this way. He 
does not suppose in any way that they so hold it, but he 
shows them that that is what the Siardgeis teach. All that 
we know of the way of celebrating Easter in use among the 
Audians is therefore reduced to this : 

a. They always celebrated Easter with the Jews, conse 
quently on the day of the tS . 

&. They did not separate themselves from the Jews, even 
when the latter kept their passover before the equinox. This 
twofold practice is entirely in harmony with what we know 
of the origin and character of the Audians. Before separating 
from the Church, they shared the sentiments of many Asiatic 
Christians ; that is to say, they were Johannean Quarto- 
decimans, who celebrated their Easter, communicated, and 
ended their fast on the day of the tS . The orthodoxy of 
the Church which they left (the Catholic Church of Asia 
Minor), and the praises of S. Epiphanius of their faith, do 
not allow us to suppose that they could have been Ebionite 
Quartodecimans. Epiphanius does not say that they cele 
brate Easter in the same manner as the Jews, but only that 
they celebrate it at the same time as the Jews. Neither 



NIOEA: THE AUDIANS. 339 

must we conclude that they were Ebionites because they 
sometimes kept Easter with the Jews before the equinox. 
That only proves that they followed the iS closely, simply, 
and literally, without troubling themselves with astronomical 
calculations. When the Jews celebrated the *S , they kept 
their Christian feast. 

We have seen that they appealed to an apocryphal book. 
We do not know if they followed the rules of this book on 
other points. The analysis which Epiphanius makes of all 
the passages of the Siardgeis shows us that the Audians did 
not follow entirely the rules given in this work about the 
celebration of Easter. It is not easy to determine the exact 
meaning of these rules. As Epiphanius understands them, 
they set forth the following requirements : " When the Jews 
keep their passover after the equinox, you may celebrate 
Easter at the same time ; but if, according to their new and 
erroneous reckoning, they keep it before the equinox, you 
ought not to imitate them." Weitzel gives another meaning 
to this passage : " When the Jews eat/ etc. He believes 
that the Stara^e^ wish to establish a middle course between 
the Western and Eastern practices that Quartodecimanism 
is their basis ; to which they add the two following direc 
tions : 

a. On the day of the i$, when the Jews keep their pass- 
over, you should fast and weep, because it is the day of Christ s 
death. 

6. But when the Jews are mourning on the days following 
the passover, or more exactly, on the Mazot days, you should 
feast, that is to say, you should celebrate your Easter festival 
on the day of the resurrection. 

They therefore preserved on one side the Asiatic practice, 
which required that Easter should be regulated according to 
the day of the month ; and on the other, they admitted the 
Eoman custom, which was to fast on the day of Christ s death, 
and to celebrate the festival on the day of His resurrection. 
The eve of that day would then be the arypwrvla fjbeaa^ovTwv 
TGOV atyfjuov spoken of by Epiphanius at the end of the tenth 
chapter. We have shown above that this latter opinion was 
without foundation ; and besides, Weitzel s hypothesis has 



340 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



also this against it, that it makes the Smra^ei? offer a very 
strange compromise between the Easter usage of the Westerns 
and that of the Asiatics, a compromise which is found no 
where else, and which the Audians would not have accepted. 
Epiphanius gives the following information upon the after- 
history of the Audians, and the duration of this sect of the 
Quartodecimans. As Audius was continually trying to spread 
his doctrine further, and as he had already gained both men 
and women to his side, 1 the bishops complained of him to the 
Emperor, who banished him to Scythia. S. Epiphanius does 
not say how long he lived there ; but he relates that he spread 
Christianity among the Goths in the neighbourhood (probably 
those on the borders of the Black Sea) ; that he founded 
monasteries among them, which became celebrated for the 
austerity of their rules and the chastity of their monks ; but 
that he continued to celebrate Easter according to his method, 
and to maintain his opinion about our likeness to God. The 
Audians showed the same obstinacy in refusing to communi 
cate with other Christians, or to live even with the most 
virtuous among them. What appears intolerable to S. Epi 
phanius 2 is, that they would not content themselves with the 
general name of Christians, and that they united to it the name 
of a man in calling themselves Audians. After the death of 
Audius, Uranius was their principal bishop in Mesopotamia; but 
they had several bishops in the land of the Goths, among whom 
Epiphanius mentions Sylvanus. After the death of Uranius and 
Sylvanus, the sect became very small. With the other Chris 
tians, they were driven from the country of the Goths by the 
pagan king Athanarich (372). " They have also left our 
country," adds S. Epiphanius, " and their convent on Mount 
Taurus (in the south of Asia Minor), as well as those in Pales 
tine and Arabia, have been abandoned." S. Epiphanius con 
cludes his notice with the remark, that the number of members 
of this party and of their monasteries was very small at the time 
when he wrote, that is, about the year 400 after Christ ; and 
they then had only two resorts, one in Chalcis, and the other in 
Mesopotamia. It is hardly probable that the anthropomorphic 
monks of Egypt could have had any connection with the 

1 Epiphan. Hares, c. 14 and c. 9. 2 Epiplian. c. 15. 



: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 341 

Audians : the laws of the Emperors Theodosius II. and Valen- 
tinian ill. prove that the latter still existed in the fifth century, 
for they were then reckoned among the heretics ; x but in the 
sixth century they altogether disappear. 

SEC. 40. Decision on the subject of the Meletian Schism. 

The third chief business of the Synod of Nicsea was to 
put an end to the Meletian schism, which had broken out some 
time before in Egypt, and must not be confused with another 
Meletian schism which agitated Antioch half a century later. 
The imperfect connection, or rather the contradiction, which 
exists in the information furnished by the original documents, 
hardly allows us to determine what was the true origin of the 
Meletian schism of Egypt. These documents may be divided 
into four classes, as chief of which, on account of their import 
ance, we must mention those discovered more than a century 
ago by Scipio Maffe i, in a, MS. belonging to the chapter of 
Verona, and printed in the third volume of his Observazioni 
letterarie? Eouth afterwards reprinted them in his 



sacrce. 3 



These documents are all in Latin, but they are evidently 
translated from the Greek ; and in order to be understood, must 
often be re-translated into Greek. But that is not always suffi 
cient : in many places the text is so corrupt as to be perfectly 
unintelligible. The authenticity of these documents, which 
are three in number, has been doubted by no one, and their 
importance has been universally acknowledged. The most 
important, the largest, and the most ancient of these pieces, 
is a letter written from their dungeon by the four Egyptian 
bishops, Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas, to 
Meletius himself. Eusebius relates that these four bishops 
were seized and martyred under Diocletian. 4 Maffe i presumes 
that Phileas Bishop of Thmuis, in Upper Egypt, was the 
composer of this common letter, because this bishop is known 
elsewhere as a writer, 5 and is quoted by Eusebius and S. Jerome 

1 Codex Theod. 1. xvi. vol. r. de Hcerct. 1. 65. 

2 Pp. 11-18 (1738). 3 Vol. iii. p. 381 sq. 

4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. viii. 13. 

5 De Marty ribus. Cf. Euseb. His 1 Eccl. viii. 10. 



342 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

as a learned man. 1 What adds to the probability of this hypo 
thesis, is the fact that in the letter in question Phileas is men 
tioned the last, whilst Eusebius and the Acts of the Martyrs, 
translated into Latin, mention him first, and represent him as 
one of the most important men in Egypt. 2 Besides, this 
letter by Phileas, etc., was evidently written at the com 
mencement of the schism of Meletius, and before he had been 
formally separated from the Church ; for the bishops gave 
him the name of dilectus comminister in Domino. " They 
have," they say, " for some time heard vague rumours on the 
subject of Meletius : he was accused of troubling the divine 
order and ecclesiastical rules. Quite recently these reports 
had been confirmed by a great number of witnesses, so that 
they had been obliged to write this letter. It was impossible 
for them to describe the general sadness and profound emotion 
occasioned by the ordinations that Meletius had held in strange 
dioceses. He was, however, acquainted with the law, so ancient 
and so entirely in conformity with divine and human right, 
which forbids a bishop to hold an ordination in a strange diocese. 
But without respect to this law, or to the great bishop and 
father Peter (Archbishop of Alexandria), or for those who were 
in prison, he had brought everything into a state of confusion. 
Perhaps he would say in self-justification, that necessity had 
obliged him to act thus, because the parishes were without 
pastors. But this allegation was false, for they had instituted 
several TrepioSevral and visitors ; and in case of these being 
negligent, he should have brought the matter before the im 
prisoned bishops. In case they should have told him that 
these bishops were already executed, he could easily have dis 
covered if it were so ; and even supposing that the news of 
their death had been verified, his duty was still to ask of the 
chief Father (Peter Archbishop of Alexandria) permission to 
hold ordinations." Finally, the bishops recommended him to 
observe the holy rules, of the Church for the future. 

The second document is a short notice added by an ancient 
anonymous writer to the preceding letter. It is thus worded : 

1 Euseb. I.e. viii. 9, 10 ; Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. s.v. Phileas. 

2 Euseb. I.e. viii. 9, 13; Baron, ad ann. 306, No. 52; Ruinart, Acta Martyr. 
iii. 157, ed. Aug. Vindel. 



NIOEA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 343 

" Meletius having received and read this letter, made no an 
swer to it, nor did he go either to the imprisoned bishops or 
to Peter of Alexandria. After the death of these bishops as 
martyrs, he went immediately to Alexandria, where he made 
partisans of two intriguers, Isidore and Arius, who wished to 
become priests, and were full of jealousy against their arch 
bishop. They pointed out to him the two visitors appointed 
by Archbishop Peter : Meletius excommunicated them, and 
appointed two others in their place. When Archbishop Peter 
was told of what was passing, he addressed the following letter 
to the people of Alexandria." 

This letter is the third important document, and is thus 
worded : " Having learned that Meletius had no respect for 
the letter of the blessed bishops and martyrs (we perceive that 
Phileas and his companions had been already executed), but 
that he has introduced himself into my diocese that he has 
deposed those to whom I had given authority, and consecrated 
others I request you to avoid all communion with him, until 
it is possible for me to meet him with some wise men, and to 
examine into this business." 

We will thus sum up what results from the analysis of 
these three documents : 

1st. Meletius, an Egyptian bishop (the other bishops call 
him cotnminist&r) of Lycopolis in the Thebais (S. Athanasius 
gives us this latter information in his Apologia contra Arianos, 
No. 71), made use of the time when a great number of bishops 
were in prison on account of their faith, in despite of all the 
rules of the Church, to hold ordinations in foreign dioceses, 
probably in those of the four bishops, Phileas, Hesychius, 
Theodoras, and Pachomius. 

2d. Nothing necessitated these ordinations ; and if they 
had been really necessary, Meletius ought to have asked per 
mission to hold them from the imprisoned bishops, or, in case 
of their death, from Peter Archbishop of Alexandria. 

3d None of these three documents tell where Archbishop 
Peter was at that time, but the second and third prove that 
he was not at Alexandria. They show also that he was not 
imprisoned like his four colleagues, Phileas and the rest. 
Indeed, it was because Peter could not live at Alexandria that 



344 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

lie had authorized commissaries to represent him, but Meletius 
took advantage of his absence to bring trouble into this city 
also. 

Again, we may conclude that Peter was not imprisoned : 

(<x.) Even from the letter which he wrote, saying, " He 
would go himself to Alexandria." 

(/3.) From the first as well as the second document putting 
a difference between his situation and that of the imprisoned 
bishops. 

(7.) Finally, from these words of Socrates : l " During Peter s 
flight, on account of the persecution then raging, Meletius 
allowed himself to hold ordinations." We will admit, in 
passing, the fact that Archbishop Peter, like Dionysius the 
Great and S. Cyprian, had fled during the persecution, and 
was absent from Alexandria, because it is of great importance 
in judging of the value of other information from the same 
sources. 

&th. According to the second document, Meletius despised 
the exhortations of the four imprisoned bishops, and would 
not enter into relation either with them or with Archbishop 
Peter ; and after the death of these bishops he went himself 
to Alexandria, where he united with Arius and Isidore, ex 
communicated the episcopal visitors appointed by Peter, and 
ordained two others. 

5t7i. Archbishop Peter, being informed of all these things, 
recommended from his retreat all the faithful not to com 
municate with Meletius. 

The offence of Meletius, then, consisted in his having 
introduced himself without any right into other dioceses, and 
in having given holy orders. It was not so much the neces 
sity of the Church as his own arrogance and ambition which 
impelled him to this step. Epiphanius 2 and Theodoret 3 
tell us that Meletius came next in rank to the Bishop of 
Alexandria, that he -was jealous of his primate, and wished to 
profit by his absence, in order to make himself master and 
primate of Egypt. 

The second source of information upon the origin of the 

1 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 24 2 Epipli. Hares. 68. 1. 

3 Tlieod. Hcer. fabul ir. 7. 



NIC7EA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 345 

Meletians is composed of some expressions of S. Athanasius, 
and of the ecclesiastical historian Socrates. Athanasius, who 
had had much to do with the Meletians, says 

(a.) In his Apology: 1 "The latter (Peter Archbishop of 
Alexandria) in a synodical assembly deposed Melitius (Atha 
nasius always writes MeXmo?), who had been convicted of 
many offences, and particularly of having offered sacrifice to 
idols. But Melitius did not appeal to another synod, neither 
did he try to defend himself; but he raised a schism, and to 
this day his followers do not call themselves Christians, but 
Melitians. Shortly afterwards he began to spread invectives 
against the bishops, particularly against Peter, and subse 
quently against Achillas and Alexander " (who were Peter s 
two immediate successors). 

(/#.) The same work of S. Athanasius 2 furnishes us also 
with the following information : " From the times of the 
bishop and martyr Peter, the Melitians have been schismatics 
and enemies of the Church : they injured Bishop Peter, 
maligned his successor Achillas, and denounced Bishop Alex 
ander to the Emperor." 

(7.) S. Athanasius in a third passage says: 3 "The Melitians 
are impelled by ambition and avarice." And : " They were 
declared schismatics fifty-five years ago, and thirty-six years 
ago the Arians were declared heretics." 

(8.) Finally, in a fourth passage : 4 " The Eusebians knew 
well how the Melitians had behaved against the blessed 
martyr Peter, then against the great Achillas, and finally 
against Alexander of blessed memory." 

Socrates agrees so well in all concerning the Meletians 
with what Athanasius says, that it might be supposed that 
Socrates had only copied Athanasius. 5 

Here is an epitome of the facts given by both : 

1. They accuse Meletius of having offered sacrifice to the 
gods during the persecution. The three documents analysed 
above do not say a word of this apostasy, neither does Sozomen 
mention it ; and S. Epiphanius gives such praises to Meletius, 

1 Contra Arianos, n. 59. 2 Apologia contra Arianos, No. 11. 

3 Atlianas. ad episc. ^Egypti et Libyan, c. 22. * Ibid. c. 23. 

3 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 6, p. 14, ed. Mog. 



346 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

that certainly he did not even suspect him of this apostasy. 
It may also be said with some reason, that such consideration 
would not have been shown to Meletius and his followers 
by the Synod of Mcosa if he had really offered sacrifice to 
idols. 1 

On the other hand, it cannot be admitted that S. Athana- 
sius should have knowingly accused Meletius of a crime which 
he had not committed. The whole character of this great man 
is opposed to such a supposition ; and besides, the commonest 
prudence would have induced him to avoid making an accu 
sation which he knew to be false, in a public work against 
declared adversaries. It is much more probable that such 
reports were really circulated about Meletius, as other bishops, 
e.g. Eusebius of Csesarea, were subjected to the like calumny. 
What may perhaps have occasioned these rumours about 
Meletius, is the fact that for some time 2 this bishop was 
able to traverse Egypt without being arrested, and ordained 
priests at Alexandria and elsewhere ; whilst bishops, priests, 
and deacons who were firm in the faith were thrown into 
prison, and shed their blood for their holy faith. 

2. Athanasius and Socrates reproach Meletius with having 
despised, calumniated, and persecuted the Bishops of Alexan 
dria, Peter, Achillas, and Alexander. 

3. By comparing the expressions of S. Athanasius with the 
original documents analysed above, we are able to determine 
almost positively the period of the birth of the Meletian 
schism. Athanasius, indeed, agrees with the three original 
documents, in affirming that it broke out during the episcopate 
of Peter, who occupied the throne of Alexandria from the year 
300 to 311. S. Athanasius gives us a much more exact date 
when he says that the Meletians had been declared schismatics 
fifty-five years before. Unfortunately we do not know in 
what year he wrote the w T ork in which he gives this infor 
mation. It is true that S. Athanasius adds these words to 
the text already quoted : " For thirty-six years the Arians 
have been declared heretics/ If S. Athanasius is alluding 
to the condemnation of Arianism by the Council of Mcsea, 

1 Walch, KetzergescJi. Till. iv. S. 391 f. 

* Epiplianius says that he was subsequently imprisoned in his turn. 



NIC.EA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 347 

he must have written this work in 361, that is to say, thirty- 
six years after the year 325, when the Council of Nicaea 
was held ; l but others, and particularly the learned Benedic 
tine Montfaucon, reckon these thirty-six years from the year 
320, when the heresy of Arius was first condemned by the 
Synod of Alexandria. According to this calculation, Atha- 
nasius must have written his Epistola ad Episcopos JEgypti 2 
in 356. These two dates, 356 and 361, give us 301 or 306 
as the date of the origin of the schism of Meletius, since it 
was fifty-five years before 356 or 361, according to S. Atha- 
nasius, that the Meletians were condemned. We have there 
fore to choose between 301 and 306; but we must not forget 
that, according to the original documents, this schism broke 
out during a terrible persecution against the Christians. JSTow, 
as Diocletian s persecution did not begin to rage in a cruel 
manner until between the years 303 and 305, we are led to 
place the origin of this schism about the year 304 or 305. 

4. Our second series of original authorities do not say that 
Meletius ordained priests in other dioceses, but S. Athanasius 
mentions that " Meletius was convicted of many offences." 
We may suppose that he intended an allusion to these ordi 
nations, and consequently it would be untrue to say that 
Athanasius and the original documents are at variance. 

5. Neither can it be objected that S. Athanasius men 
tions a condemnation of Meletius by a synod of Egyptian 
bishops, whilst the original documents say nothing about it, 
for these documents refer only to the first commencement of 
the Meletian schism. Sozomen, besides, is agreed upon this 
point with S. Athanasius, in the main at least. He says : 3 
" Peter Archbishop of Alexandria excommunicated the Mele 
tians, and would not consider their baptism to be valid ; 
Arius blamed the bishop for this severity." It must be 
acknowledged that, according to the right opinion respecting 
heretical baptism, the archbishop was here too severe ; but 
also it must not be forgotten that the question of the validity 

1 See above, sec. 10. 

2 Cf. his Admonitio to this letter in Opera Athanas. vol. i. 1, p. 212, ed. 
Patav. Cf. Walch, Ketzergesch. Thl. iv. S. 381 f., Thl. ii. S. 421. 

3 Sozom. Hist. EccL i. 15. 



348 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

of baptism administered by heretics was not raised until later, 
and received no complete and definite solution till 314, at the 
Council of Aries. 

Up to this point, the documents whiVh we have consulted 
have nothing which is mutually contradictory ; but we can 
not say as much of the account given us of the Meletian 
schism by S. Epiphanius. 1 He says : " In Egypt there exists 
a party of Meletians, which takes its name from a bishop of 
the Theba is called MeX^rto?. This man was orthodox, and 
in what concerns the faith did not at all separate from the 
Church. . . . He raised a schism, but he did not alter the 
faith. During the persecution he was imprisoned with Peter, 
the holy bishop and martyr (of Alexandria), and with others. 
. . . He had precedence of the other Egyptian bishops, and 
came immediately after Peter of Alexandria, whose auxiliary 
he was. . . . Many Christians had fallen during the perse 
cution, had sacrificed to idols, and now entreated the con 
fessors and martyrs to have compassion on their repentance. 
Some of these penitents were soldiers ; others belonged to the 
clerical order. These were priests, deacons, etc. There was 
then much hesitation and even confusion among the martyrs : 
for some said that the lapsi should not be admitted to peni 
tence, because this ready admission might shake the faith of 
others. The defenders of this opinion had good reasons for 
them. We must number among these defenders Meletius, 
Peleus, and other martyrs and confessors : all wished that 
they should await the conclusion of the persecution before 
admitting the lapsi to penitence. They also demanded that 
those clergy who had fallen should no longer exercise the 
functions of their office, but for the rest of their lives should 
remain in lay communion." The holy Bishop Peter, mer 
ciful as he ever was, then made this request : " Let us receive 
them if they manifest repentance ; we will give them a pen 
ance to be able afterwards to reconcile them with the Church. 
We will not refuse them nor the clergy either, so that shame 
and the length of time may not impel them to complete per 
dition." Peter and Meletius not agreeing upon this point, a 
division arose between them ; and when Archbishop Peter 

1 Epiph. Hceres. 68. 1-4. 



DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 349 

perceived that his merciful proposition was formally set aside 
by Meletius and his party, he hung his mantle in the middle 
of the dungeon as a sort of curtain, and sent word by a 
deacon : " "Whoever is of my opinion, let him come here ; 
and let whoso holds that of Meletius go to the other side." 
Most passed over to the side of Meletius, and only a few to 
Peter. From this time the two parties were separate in their 
prayers, their offerings, and their ceremonies. Peter after 
wards suffered martyrdom, and the Archbishop Alexander 
was his successor. Meletius was arrested with other con 
fessors, and condemned to work in the mines of Palestine. 1 
On his way to exile Meletius did what he had before done in 
prison, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons, and founded 
churches of his own, because his party and that of Peter 
would not have communion with each other. The successors 
of Peter called theirs the Catholic Church, whilst the Mele- 
tians named theirs the Church of the Martyrs. Meletius went 
to Eleutheropolis, to Gaza, and to Aelia (Jerusalem), and 
everywhere ordained clergy. He must have remained a long 
time in the mines ; and there also his followers and those of 
Peter would not communicate together, and assembled in 
different places for prayer. At last they were all delivered. 
Meletius still lived a long time, and was in friendly relations 
with Alexander, the successor of Bishop Peter. He occupied 
himself much with the preservation of the faith. Meletius 
lived at Alexandria, where he had a church of his own. It 
was he who first denounced the heresy of Arius to Bishop 
Alexander. 

We see that Epiphanius gives the history of the Meletian 
schism in quite a different way from S. Athanasius and the 
original documents. According to him, the origin of this 
schism was the disagreement between Meletius and Peter on 
the subject of the admission of the lapsi, and particularly 
about the clergy who had fallen. In this business Meletius 
had not been so severe as the IsTovatians, but more so than 
his archbishop, who had shown too much mercy, so much 
so that the right appeared to be undoubtedly on his side. In 
order to explain this contrast, it has often been supposed that 

1 Cf. Euseb. de Martyr. Palcest. c. 7. 



350 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Epiphanius took a notice composed by a Meletian as the 
foundation of Ms own account, and that he was thus led to 
treat Meletius much too favourably. But it seems to me 
that it may be explained more satisfactorily. S. Epiphanius 
relates, that on his way to the mines, Meletius founded a 
Church for his party at Eleutheropolis. Now Eleutheropolis 
was the native country of S. Epiphanius, consequently he 
must have known many of the Meletians personally in his 
youth. These fellow-countrymen of S. Epiphanius would 
doubtless make him acquainted with the origin of their party, 
placing it in the most favourable light ; and subsequently S. 
Epiphanius would give too favourable an account of them in 
his work. 

It may now be asked, What is the historical value of S. 
Epiphanius history ? I know that very many Church his 
torians have decided in its favour, and against Athanasius ; 
but since the discovery of original documents, this opinion is 
no longer tenable, and it must be acknowledged that S. 
Epiphanius was mistaken on the principal points. 1 

a. According to Epiphanius, Meletius was imprisoned at 
the same time as Peter. Now the original documents prove 
that, at the time of the commencement of the schism, neither 
Peter nor Meletius was in prison. 

&. According to S. Epiphanius, Bishop Peter of Alexan 
dria was too merciful towards the lapsi ; but the penitential 
canons of this bishop present him in quite another light, and 
prove that he knew how to keep a wise middle course, and 
to proportion the penance to the sin. 2 He who had borne 
torture for a long time before allowing himself to be con 
quered by the feebleness of the flesh, was to be less severely 
punished than he who had only resisted for a very short time. 
The slave who, by order of his master, and in his stead, had 
sacrificed to idols, was only punished by a year of ecclesias 
tical penance, whilst his master was subjected to a penance 
of three years (canons 6 and 7). The tenth canon particu 
larly forbids that deposed priests should be restored to their 

1 An entirely contrary opinion to ours has been expressed by Walch, I.e. Thl. 
iv. S. 378. 

2 Mansi, i. 1270, can. 1, 2, 3, 5. 



NICM5A I DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 351 

cures, and that anything but lay communion should be granted 
to them. Peter therefore here teaches exactly what S. Epi- 
phanius supposes to be the opinion of Meletius, and what, 
according to him, Peter refused to admit. 

c. S. Epiphanius is mistaken again, when he relates that 
Peter was martyred in prison, as the original documents, and 
S. Athanasius, who had the opportunity of knowing the facts, 
tell us that Peter left his retreat, and excommunicated 
Meletius in a synod. 

d. According to S. Epiphanius, Alexander was the im 
mediate successor of Bishop Peter, whilst in reality it was 
Achillas who succeeded Peter, and Alexander succeeded him. 

e. Einally, according to S. Epiphanius, the schismatic 
Meletius, although having a separate church at Alexandria, 
was on the best terms with Archbishop Alexander, and de 
nounced the heresy of Arius to him ; but the whole conduct 

>/ 

of Meletius towards the Archbishop of Alexandria, and the 
part taken by the Meletians in the Arian heresy, give much 
more credibility to the assertion of S. Athanasius. Meletius, 
according to him, despised and persecuted Bishop Alexander, 
as he had before done his predecessors on the throne of 
Alexandria. 

We have exhausted the three sources of information already 
mentioned. Those remaining for us to consult have neither 
the importance, nor the antiquity, nor the historical value of 
the three first. Among these documents there are, however, 
two short accounts by Sozomen and Theodoret, 1 which deserve 
consideration, and which agree very well with the original docu 
ments, and in part with what is said by S. Athanasius. We 
have already made use of these accounts. As for S. Augustine, 
he mentions the Meletians only casually, and says nothing as 
to the origin of the sect ; besides, he must have had before 
him the account of Epiphanius. 2 

The great importance of the Meletian schism decided the 
Council of Mcsea to notice it, especially as, in the Emperor s 
mind, the principal object of the Council was to restore peace 
to the Church. Its decision on this matter has been preserved 

1 Theodor. Hist. Ecdes. i. 9, and Hceret. fdbul. iv. 7. 

8 Augustine, de Hceres. c. 48 ; "Walch, I.e. S. 358, 362, 366. 



352 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

to us in the synodical letter of the Egyptian bishops/ etc., 
who speak in these terms of the Meletian schism, after having 
treated of the heresy of Arius : " It has also been necessary 
to consider the question of Meletius and those ordained by 
him ; and we wish to make known to you, beloved brethren, 
what the Synod has decided upon this matter. The Synod 
desired, above all things, to show mercy; and seeing, on 
carefully considering all things, that Meletius does not deserve 
consideration, it has been decided that he should remain in 
his city, but without having any authority there, and without 
the power of ordination, or of selecting the clergy. He is 
also forbidden to go into the neighbourhood or into any other 
town for such an object. Only the simple title of bishop 
should remain to him; and as for the clergy ordained by 
him, it is necessary to lay hands upon them again, 2 that they 
may afterwards be admitted to communion with the Church, 
to give them their work, and to restore to them the honours 
which are their due ; but in all dioceses where these clergy 
are located, they should always come after the clergy ordained 
by Alexander. As for those who, by the grace of God and 
by their prayers, have been preserved from all participation 
in the schism, and have remained inviolably attached to the 
Catholic Church, without giving any cause for dissatisfaction, 
they shall preserve the right of taking part in all ordinations, 
of presenting such and such persons for the office of the 
ministry, and of doing whatever the laws and economy of 
the Church allow. If one of these clergy should die, his 
place may be supplied by one newly admitted (that is to say, 
a Meletian) ; but on the condition that he should appear 
worthy, that he should be chosen by the people, and that 
the Bishop of Alexandria should have given his consent to 
such election." These stipulations were to be applied to all 
the Meletians. There was, however, an exception made with 
Meletius, that is to say, that the rights and prerogatives of a 
bishop were not retained to him, because they well knew his 

1 In Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 9 ; Theodor. Hist. Eccles. i. 9 ; Gelasius, Ic. lib. 
ii. c. 33. 

2 That is to say, that the ordination was not to be repeated, but simply made 
valid. Cf. Tillemont, Mtmoires, etc., vol. vi. note 12, sur le Concile de Nicee. 



NIOEA: DECISION ON THE MELETIAN SCHISM. 353 

incorrigible habit of putting everything in disorder, and also 
his precipitation. Therefore, that he might not continue to 
do as he had done before, the Council took from him all 
power and authority. 

" This is what particularly concerns Egypt and the Church 
of Alexandria. If any other decree has been made in the 
presence of our dear brother of Alexandria, he will acquaint 
you with it when he returns amongst you ; for in all that the 
Synod has done, he has been a guide and a fellow- worker." 

It was probably on account of the Meletians, and to cut 
short the pretensions of Meletius, who desired to withdraw 
himself from the authority of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and 
to set himself up as his equal, 1 that the Synod of Mcsea made 
this plain declaration in its sixth canon : " The ancient order 
of things must be maintained in Egypt, in Libya, and in 
Pentapolis ; that is to say, that the Bishop of Alexandria shall 
continue to have authority over the other bishops, having the 
same relation as exists with the Bishop of Eome. The ancient 
rights of the Churches shall also be protected, whether at 
Antioch or in the other bishoprics. It is evident, that if one 
should become a bishop without the consent of his metro 
politan, he could not, according to the order of the great 
Synod, retain this dignity; but if, from a pure spirit of 
contradiction, two or three should oppose an election which 
the unanimity of all the others renders possible and legal, in 
such a case the majority must carry the day." 2 

The Synod had hoped to gain the Meletians by gentleness ; 
but it succeeded so little, that after the Mcene Synod they 
became more than ever enemies to the Church, and by uniting 
with the Arians, did a thousand times more harm than they 
had done before. Also, in speaking of this admission of the 
Meletians into the Church, decreed by the Council of Mcaea, 
S. Athanasius rightly said, " Would to God it had never taken 
place !" 3 In the same passage we learn from S. Athanasius, 
that in order to execute the decree of the Council of Mcsea, 
Alexander begged Meletius to give him a list of all the bishops, 

1 Theodor. Ifceret. fabul. iv. 7. 

2 Mansi, ii. 670 ; Hard. i. 326. 

3 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 71 ; Opp. i. 1. 148. 

Z 



o 



54 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



priests, and deacons who formed his party. Alexander wished 
to prevent Meletius from hastening to make new ordinations, 
to sell holy orders for money, and thus to fill the Church with 
a multitude of unworthy clergy, abusing the mercy of the 
Council of Nicaea. Meletius remitted, indeed, the desired list 
to the Archbishop of Alexandria, and subsequently Athanasius 
inserted it in his Apologia against the Arians. "We see from 
it that the Meletians numbered in Egypt twenty-nine bishops, 
including Meletius ; and at Alexandria, four priests, three 
deacons, and a military almoner. Meletius himself gave this 
list to Alexander, who doubtless made these ordinations valid, 
in obedience to the Council of Nicsea. 1 

According to the ordinance of !Nicsea, Meletius remained in 
" his city," Lycopolis ; but after the death of Bishop Alexander, 
through the mediation of Eusebius of Mcomedia, that alliance 
was entered into between the Meletians and the Arians which 
was so unfortunate for the Church, and particularly for S. 
Athanasius, in which Meletius took part. 2 It is not known 
when he died. He nominated as his successor his friend. 
John, who, after being maintained in his office by the 
Eusebians at the Council of Tyre in 335, was driven into 
exile by the Emperor Constantine. 3 The best known of the 
Meletians are Bishop Arsenius, who, it is said, had had one 
hand cut off by S. Athanasius ; Bishop Callinicus of Pelusium, 
who at the Council of Sardica was a decided adversary of S. 
Athanasius ; the hermit Paphnutius, who must not be mis 
taken for the bishop of the same name who at the Council of 
Nicsea was the defender of the marriage of priests ; 4 and the 
pretended priest Ischyras, who was among the principal ac 
cusers and most bitter enemies of S. Athanasius. We shall 
afterwards have occasion to speak of the part take.n by the 
Meletians in the troubles excited by the heresy of Arius ; 
suffice it here to say, that this schism existed in Egypt until 

1 Athanas. I.e. c. 72. The above shows that S. Epiphanius was mistaken in 
supposing (Hares. 68. 3) that Meletius was dead before the Mcene Council. We 
cannot, however, be sure that he was present in person there. Cf. Walch, I.e. 
S. 390. 

2 Athanas. Apologia, c. 59 ; Epiphan. Hceres. 68. 6 ; Theodor. Hist. Ecd. 
i. 26. 

3 Sozom. ii. 31. 4 Tillem. I.e. vi. 100. 



NIOEA : NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 355 

the middle of the fifth century, as is attested by Socrates and 
Theodoret, both contemporaries. 1 The latter mentions espe 
cially some very superstitious Meletian monks who practised 
the Jewish ablutions. 2 But after the middle of the fifth cen 
tury, the Meletians altogether disappear from history. 

SEC. 41. Number of the Nicene Canons. 

The Synod of Mcsea also set forth a certain number of 
canons or prescriptions on discipline ; but there has been 
much discussion as to the number. We give here our opinion 
upon this question, which we have before discussed in the 
Ttibinger TheologiscJie Quartalsclirift? 

Let us see first what is the testimony of those Greek and 
Latin authors who lived about the time of the Council, con 
cerning the number. 

a. The first to be consulted among the Greek authors is 
the learned Theodoret, who lived about a century after the 
Council of Mcsea. He says, in his History of the Church : 4 
" After the condemnation of the Arians, the bishops assembled 
once more, and decreed twenty canons on ecclesiastical dis 
cipline." 

I. Twenty years later, Gelasius Bishop of Cyzicus, after 
much research into the most ancient documents, wrote a his 
tory of the Mcene Council 5 Gelasius also says expressly 
that the Council decreed twenty canons ; and, what is more 
important, he gives the original text of these canons exactly in 
the same order, and according to the tenor which we find 
elsewhere. 6 

c. Rufinus is more ancient than these two historians. He 
was born near the period when the Council of Nicsea was held, 
and about half a century after he wrote his celebrated history 
of the Church, in which he inserted a Latin translation of 
the Nicene canons. Eufinus also knew only of these twenty 
canons ; but as he has divided the sixth and the eighth into 

1 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 8, p. 38, ed. Mog. ; Theodor. Hist. Ecdes. i. 9, p. 32, 
ed. Mog. 

2 Theodor. Hceret. fabul. iv. 7. 3 1851, Heft i. S. 49 ff. 
4 Theodor. lib. i. c. 8. 5 See above sec. 23. 

6 Lib. ii. c. 30 and 31 ; in Hard. i. 430 sqq. 



356 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

two parts, he has given twenty-two canons, which are exactly 
the same as the twenty furnished by the other historians. 1 

d. The famous discussion between the African bishops and 
the Bishop of Borne, on the subject of appeals to Borne, gives 
us a very important testimony on the true number of the 
Mcene canons. 2 The presbyter Apiarius of Sicca in Africa, 
having been deposed for many crimes, appealed to Borne. 
Pope Zosimus (417418) took the appeal into consideration, 
sent legates to Africa ; and to prove that he had the right to 
act thus, he quoted a canon of the Council of Mcsea, contain 
ing these words : " When a bishop thinks he has been un 
justly deposed by his colleagues, he may appeal to Borne, and 
the Boman bishop shall have the business decided \>j juclices 
in partibus." The canon quoted by the Pope does not belong 
to the Council of Mcsea, as he affirmed ; it was the fifth canon 
of the Council of Sardica (the seventh in the Latin version). 
What explains the error of Zosimus is, that in the ancient 
copies 3 the canons of JSTicsea and Sardica are written consecu 
tively, with the same figures, and under the common title of 
canons of the Council of Mcoea ; and Zosimus might optima 
fide fall into an error which he shared with many Greek 
authors, his contemporaries, who also mixed the canons of 
Nicsea with those of Sardica. 4 The African bishops not find 
ing the canon quoted by the Pope either in their Greek or 
in their Latin copies, in vain consulted also the copy which 
Bishop Cecilian, who had himself been present at the Council 
of Nicsea, had brought to Carthage. 5 The legates of the Pope 
then declared that they did not rely upon these copies, and 
they agreed to send to Alexandria and to Constantinople to 
ask the patriarchs of these two cities for authentic copies of 
the canons of the Council of Mctea. The African bishops 

1 Eufinus, Hist. Ecd. lib. x. 6 of the entire work, or i. 6 of the continuation. 

2 Spittler (Gesamm. Werke) relates all this in detail, Bd. viii. S. 158 ff. Cf. 
also Ballerini, Opp. S. Leonis M. ii. 358 ; and Tubinger Quartalschr/ft, 1825, 
S. 39. 

3 "We have still the proof of this in very ancient MSS. Cf. Ballerini, de Anti- 
quis Collectionibus etc. Canonum, p. 380 ; Constant. Diss. de Antiquis Canonum 
Collect, in Galland. de Vetustis Canonum Coll. i. 78. 

4 Cf. Ballerini, de Antlquis Collect, in Galland. I.e. p. 289. 
6 Mansi, iv. 406 sq. c. 9 ; Hard. I.e. i. 1244, c. 9. 



NICJEA : NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 357 

desired in their turn that Pope Boniface should take the same 
step (Pope Zosimus had died meanwhile in 418), that he 
should ask for copies from the Archbishops of Constantinople, 
Alexandria, and Antioch. 1 Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus 
of Constantinople, indeed, sent exact and faithful copies of the 
Creed and canons of ISTicsea ; and two learned men of Constan 
tinople, Theilo and Thearistus, even translated these canons 
into Latin. 2 Their translation has been preserved to us in the 
acts of the sixth Council of Carthage, and it contains only 
the twenty ordinary canons. 3 It might be thought at first 
sight that it contained twenty-one canons ; but on closer con 
sideration we see, as Hardouin has proved, that this twenty- 
first article is nothing but an historical notice appended to the 
Nicene canons by the Fathers of Carthage. It is conceived in 
these terms : " After the bishops had decreed these rules at 
Nicsea, and after the holy Council had decided what was the 
ancient rule for the celebration of Easter, peace and unity 
of faith were re-established between the East and the West. 
This is what we (the African bishops) have thought it right to 
add according to the history of the Church." 

The bishops of Africa despatched to Pope Boniface the 
copies which had been sent to them from Alexandria and 
Constantinople, in the month of November 419 ; and subse 
quently in their letters to Celestine I. (423-432), successor 
to Boniface, they appealed to the text of these documents. 5 

e. All the ancient collections of canons, either in Latin or 
Greek, composed in the fourth, or quite certainly at least in 
the fifth century, agree in giving only these twenty canons to 
Nicsea. The most ancient of these collections were made in 
the Greek Church, and in the course of time a very great 
number of copies of them were written. Many of these copies 
have descended to us ; many libraries possess copies : thus 
Montfaucon enumerates several in his Bibliotlieca Coisliniana. 
Fabricius makes a similar catalogue of the copies in his 

1 Mansi, iii. 834 ; Hard. i. 943. 2 Mansi, iv. 407 ; Hard. i. 1246. 

3 Mansi, iv. 407 ; Hard. i. 1245. 

4 Mansi (iv. 414) has also remarked that this phrase did not proceed from the 
Fathers of the Council of Nicaea. 

6 Mansi, iii. 834-839 ; Hard. i. 943-950. 



358 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



BiUiotlieca Grceca 1 to those found in the libraries of Turin, 
Florence, Venice, Oxford, Moscow, etc. ; and he adds that these 
copies also contain the so-called apostolic canons, and those 
of the most ancient councils. 

The French bishop John Tilius presented to Paris, in 1540, 2 
a MS. of one of these Greek collections as it existed in the 
ninth century. It contains exactly our twenty canons of 
Mcsea, besides the so-called apostolic canons, those of Ancyra, 3 
etc. Elias Ehinger published a new edition at "Wittemberg in 
1614, using a second MS. which was found at Augsburg; 4 
but the Eoman collection of the Councils had before given, in 
1608, the Greek text of the twenty canons of Nicsea. This 
text of the Eoman editors, with the exception of some insig 
nificant variations, was exactly the same as that of the edition 
of Tilius. Neither the learned Jesuit Sirmond nor his coad 
jutors have mentioned what manuscripts were consulted in 
preparing this edition ; probably they were manuscripts drawn 
from several libraries, and particularly from that of the 
Vatican. 5 The text of this Boman edition passed into all 
the following collections, even into those of Hardouin and 
Mansi ; while Justell in his BiUiotlieca juris Canonici, and 
Beveridge in his Synodicon (both of the eighteenth century), 
give a somewhat different text, also collated from MSS., and 
very similar to the text given by Tilius. Bruns, in his recent 
BiUiotlieca Ecclesiastical compares the two texts. Now all 
these Greek MSS., consulted at such different times, and by 
all these editors, acknowledge only twenty canons of Nicsea, 
and always the same twenty which we possess. 

The Latin collections of the canons of the Councils also 
give the same result, for example, the most ancient and the 
most remarkable of all, the Prisca, 7 and that of Dionysius the 
Less, which was collected about the year 500. The testi- 

1 Ed. Harless, xii. 148 sq. Cf. Ballerini, I.e. p. 253. 

2 One volume in quarto. 3 Fabricius, I.e. p. 196. 4 Fabricius, I.e. p. 197. 

5 See the preface which Sirmond wrote for this edition, and the index to the 
first volume of the Roman collection. This preface is also printed in the works 
of Sirmond Sirmondi Opera, iv. 437, ed. Venet. 1728. 

6 i. 14 sq. 

7 It is true that the Prisca (Mansi, vi. 1114) seems to give twenty-one canons 
of Nicsea, but that is because it divides canon 19 into two. 



NIC^A : NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 359 

mony of this latter collection is the more important for the 
number twenty, as Dionysius refers to the G-rceca auctoritas. 1 

f. Among the later Eastern witnesses we may further 
mention Photius, Zonaras, and Balsamon. Photius, in his 
Collection of the Canons, and in his Nomocanon, as well as the 
two other writers in their commentaries upon the canons of 
the ancient Councils, quote only and know only of twenty 
canons of Nicsea, and always those which we possess. 2 

g. The Latin canonists of the middle ages also acknow 
ledge only these twenty canons of IsTicsea. We have proof of 
this in the celebrated Spanish collection, which is generally 
but erroneously attributed to S. Isidore (it was composed at 
the commencement of the seventh century 3 ), and in that of 
Adrian (so called because it was offered to Charles the Great 
by Pope Adrian I.). The celebrated Hincmar Archbishop of 
Eheims, the first canonist of the ninth century, 4 in his turn 
attributes only twenty canons to the Council of Nicaea ; and 
even the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more. 

In the face of these numerous and important testimonies 
from the Greek Church and the Latin, which are unanimous 
in recognising only twenty canons of Mcsea, and exactly 
those which have been handed down to us, we cannot con 
sider authentic the Latin letter which is pretended to have 
been written to Pope Marcus by S. Athanasius, in which it is 
said that the Council of Mcaea promulgated first of all forty 
Greek canons, then twenty Latin canons, and that afterwards 
the Council reassembled, and unitedly ordained these seventy 
canons. 5 A tradition, erroneously established in the East, 
may have caused this letter to be accepted. We know > 
indeed, that in some Eastern countries it was believed that 
the Council of Mcsea had promulgated this number of canons, 

1 Cf. Mansi, ii. 678 ; and Ballerini, I.e. p. 473. 

2 In Justell, I.e. ii. 793, 813 sq. ; Beveridge, Synod, vol. i. 

3 Cf. Ballerini, I.e. p. 512; Walter, Kirckenreclit, 11 Aufl. S. 151. The 
Spanish collection was edited at Madrid in 1821. 

4 Justell, I.e. Pnef. p. 9. 

5 See Athanasii Opp. ed. Bened. Patav. ii. 599. The learned Benedictine 
Montfaucon says (I.e. p. 597), speaking of this letter, and of some others which 
are also spurious: Sane commentis sunt et mendadis respersce exque varii 
locis consarcinatce, ut ne umbram quidem yvna-iorvros referant. 



360 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and some collections do contain seventy. Happily, since the 
sixteenth century we have "been in possession of these pre 
tended canons of Mcrea ; we can therefore judge them with 
certainty. 

The first who made them known in the West was the 
Jesuit J. Baptista Bomanus, who, having been sent to Alex 
andria by Pope Paul iv., found an Arabic MS. in the house 
of the patriarch of that city, containing eighty canons of 
the Council of JSTicsea. 1 He copied the MS., took his copy to 
Borne, and translated it into Latin, with the help of George 
of Damascus, a Maronite archbishop. The learned Jesuit 
Francis Turriaiius interested himself in this discovery, and 
had the translation of Father Baptista revised and improved 
by a merchant of Alexandria who was in Borne. About the 
same time another Jesuit, Alphonso Pisanus, composed a 
Latin history of the Council of Nicaea, with the help of the 
work of Gelasius of Cyzicus, which had just been discovered ; 
and at; his request Turrianus communicated to him the Latin 
translation of the Arabic canons. Pisanus received them into 
his work. 2 In the first edition 3 the testimony of the pre 
tended letter of S. Athanasius to Marcus caused him to reduce 
the eighty canons to seventy ; but in the subsequent editions 
he renounced this abbreviation, and published all the eighty 
canons in the order of the Arabic MS. It was in this way 
that the Latin translation of the eighty so-called Arabic 
canons of Elcasa passed into the other collections of the 
Councils, particularly into that of Venice and of Binius. 
Some more recent collections, however, adopted the text of 
a later translation, which Turrianus had made. 

Shortly after the first edition of Alphonso Pisanus ap 
peared, Turrianus made the acquaintance of a young con 
verted Turk called Paul Ursinus, who knew Arabic very 
well, and understood Latin and Italian. Turrianus confided 
to him a fresh translation of the eighty Arabic canons. 
Ursinus, in prepo,ring it, made use of another ancient Arabian 

1 This MS. was subsequently bought by Joseph Simon Assemani of the Coptic 
patriarch John ; it is now in the Vatican Library. Cf. Angelo Mai, Prccf. p. 5 
to the tenth volume of his Scriptorum vet. nova Collectio. 

2 Lib. iii. 3 Dilling 1572, 



NIOEA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 361 

MS., discovered in the library of Pope Marcellus II. (1555). 
This second MS. agreed so well with that of Alexandria, that 
they might both be taken for copies from one and the same 
original. Turrianus published this more accurate transla 
tion in 1578. He accompanied it with notes, and added a 
Proemium, in which he tried to prove that the Council of 
Nicsea promulgated more than twenty canons. 1 All the collec 
tions of the Councils since Turrianus have considered his posi 
tion as proved, and have admitted the eighty canons. 2 

In the following century, the Maronite Abraham Echellensis 
made the deepest researches, with reference to the Arabic 
canons of the Council of JSTicsea ; and they led him to the 
opinion that these canons must have been collected from 
different Oriental nations, from the Syrians, Chaldeans, Maron- 
ites, Copts, Jacobites, and Nestorians, and that they had been 
translated into many Oriental languages. At the same time 
he started, and with truth, the suggestion that these Oriental 
collections were simply translations of ancient Greek originals, 
and that consequently in the Greek Church too they must 
have reckoned more than twenty canons of Mcasa. 3 After 
having compared other Arabian MSS. which he had obtained, 
Echellensis gave a fresh Latin translation of these canons at 
Paris in 1645. According to these MSS., there were eighty- 
four canons instead of eighty. However, this difference arose 
much more from the external arrangement than from the 
canons themselves. Thus the thirteenth, seventeenth, thirty- 
second, and fifty-sixth canons of Turrianus were each divided 
into two in the translation by Abraham Echellensis ; on the 
other hand, the forty-third and eighty-third of Echellensis 
each formed two canons in the work of lurrianus. The 
twenty-ninth, thirty-seventh, and forty-first of A. Echellensis 
are wanting in Turrianus ; but, again, Echellensis has not the 
forty-fifth canon of Turrianus. A superficial study of these 
two collections of canons would lead to the conclusion that 
they were almost identical; but it is not so. The corre- 

1 At the end of Iris Latin translation of the Constit. Apostol. 

2 e.g. Mansi, ii. 947 sqq. ; Hard. i. 463 sqq. Most of our information re 
specting the eighty Arabic canons is taken from the Procmium of P. Turrianus. 

3 Mansi, ii. 1071, 1072. 



362 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

spending canons in the two translations sometimes have an 
entirely different meaning. We can but conclude either that 
the Arabian translators understood the Greek original diffe 
rently, or else that the MSS. which they used showed consider 
able variations. The latter supposition is the most probable ; 
it would explain how the eighty-four Arabian canons contain 
the twenty genuine canons of Nicsea, but often with consider 
able changes. Without reckoning these eighty-four canons, 
Echellensis has also translated into Latin, and published, a 
considerable number of ecclesiastical decrees, StaruTrcocret?, 
constitutiones, also attributed to the Nicene Council. He 
added to this work a Latin translation of the Arabic preface, 
which preceded the entire collection in the MS., together 
with a learned dissertation in defence of the eighty-four 
canons, with a good many notes. Mansi 1 has retained all 
these articles, and Hardouin 2 has also reproduced the prin 
cipal part of them. 

It is certain that the Orientals believed the Council of 
ISTicsea to have promulgated more than twenty canons : the 
learned Anglican Beveridge has proved this, reproducing an 
ancient Arabic paraphrase of the canons of the first four 
(Ecumenical Councils. According to this Arabic paraphrase, 
found in a MS. in the Bodleian Library, the Council of Nicsea 
must have put forth three books of canons : the first contain 
ing eighty-four canons, referring to priests, monks, etc. ; the 
second containing the first twenty authentic canons ; the third 
being only a series of rules for kings and superiors, etc. 3 The 
Arabic paraphrase of which we are speaking gives a para 
phrase of all these canons, but Beveridge took only the part 
referring to the second book, that is to say, the paraphrase 
of the twenty genuine canons ; for, according to his view, 
which, as we shall show, was perfectly correct, it was only 
these twenty canons which were really the work of the 
Council of Nicaea, and all the others were falsely attributed 
to it. The little that Beveridge gives us of the paraphrase 
of the first book of the pretended canons shows, besides, that 
this first book tolerably coincided with the fifteen decrees 

1 Mansi, ii. 982-1082. 2 Hard. i. 478-523. 

8 Beveregius, Synodicon sive Pandectce Canonum, Oxon. 1672, i. 686. 



NIC^EA : NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 363 

edited by Echellensis, which concern monks, abbots, and 
abbesses. 1 Kenaudot informs us that the third book of the 
Arabic paraphrase proves that the third book of the canons 
contained also various laws by Constantine, Theodosius, and 
Justinian. 2 Beveridge believed this paraphrase to be the 
work of an Egyptian priest named Joseph, who lived in the 
fourteenth century/ because that name is given in the MS. 
accompanied by that chronological date ; but Eenaudot proves 4 
conclusively that the Egyptian priest named Joseph had 
been only the possessor of the MS. which dated from a much 
earlier period. 

However it may be as to the latter point, it is certain 
that these Arabic canons are not the work of the Council of 
JSTicsea : their contents evidently prove a much more recent 
origin. Thus : 

a. The thirty-eighth canon (the thirty-third in Turrianus) 
ordains that the Patriarch of Ephesus should proceed to 
Constantinople, which is the urbs regia, ut honor sit regno et 
sacerdotio simul. This decree therefore supposes that Byzan 
tium was then changed into Constantinople, and that it had 
become the imperial residence. Now this change did not 
take place until about five years after the Council of Mcsea. 
At the period when the Council was held, Byzantium was 
still quite an insignificant town, almost reduced to ruins by 
a previous devastation. 5 The bishopric of Constantinople 
was only raised to the dignity of a patriarchate by the second 
and fourth (Ecumenical Councils. 6 Therefore this canon, 
translated into Arabic, could not have belonged to the Council 
of Mceea, and does not date back further than the fourth 
(Ecumenical Council. 

b. The forty-second canon of A. Echellensis (thirty-sixth 
in Turrianus) forbids the Ethiopians to elect a patriarch : 
their spiritual head was to bear only the title of Catholicus, 

1 Mansi. ii. 1011 sqq. 

2 Renaudot, Hlstoria Patriarcliarum Alexandrinorum Jacobitarum, Paris 
1713, p. 75. 

3 Piffif. p. xix. sq. * P. 27. 

5 Tillemont, Hist, des Emper. iv. 230 sq. ; Baron, ad ami. 330, n. 1 ; Iselin, 
Hist. LexiJc. art. "Constantinopel." 

6 A. 381, can. 3 ; and a. 451, can. 28. 



364 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alex 
andria, etc. This canon also betrays a more recent origin 
than the time of the Council of Mcsea. At that period, in 
deed, Ethiopia had no bishop ; hardly had S. Frumentius 
begun the conversion of its people ; and it was only subse 
quently, when S. Athanasius was already Archbishop of Alex 
andria, that S. Frumentius made him acquainted with the good 
results of his missions, and was consecrated by him bishop 
to the new converts. 1 Our canon, on the contrary, supposes 
a numerous episcopate to be then existing in Ethiopia, and 
its head, the Catholicus, to be desirous to free himself from 
the mother church of Alexandria. This canon, as well as 
others quoted by Turrianus and by A. Echellensis, assumes 
that the institution of patriarchates was then in full vigour, 
which was not the case at the time of the Council of Mcoea. 2 

c. Peter de Marca 3 has already proved the forty -third 
canon of the text of A. Echellensis (thirty-seventh in Turr.) 
to be more recent than the third (Ecumenical Council of 
Ephesus (431). This Council of Ephesus rejected the pre 
tensions of the Patriarch of Antioch respecting the choice of 
the bishops of Cyprus. 4 According to Marca s demonstration, 
this dependence of Cyprus upon the see of Antioch cannot 
be verified before the year 900 : for in the time of the 
Emperor Leo the Wise (911), we know, from the Notitia of 
his reign, that Cyprus was not then dependent upon Antioch ; 
whilst this Arabian canon makes out that this submission 
was already an accomplished fact, disputed by no one. 5 

d. The fifty-third canon (forty-ninth in Turr.), which con 
demns simony, has its origin from the second canon of the 
fourth (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. 6 It is therefore 
evident that it was not formed at Nicsea. 

e. In the thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and forty-second canons 
(c. 33, 34, and 36 in Turr.), the Bishop of Seleucia, Almo- 
dajen, is already called Catholicus, a dignity to which he 

1 See the author s dissertation upon "Abyssinia" in the Kirchenlexik. of 
von "Wetzer und Welte. 

2 C. 8, 33, 35, 37, 46, Turr. ; c. 8, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, Echel. 

3 De concord, sacerdotii et imperil, lib. ii. c. 9. 
* Mansi, iv. 1470 ; Hard. i. 1619. 

5 Cf. Bevereg. I.e. vol. ii. ; Annotationes, p. 212, a. c Held in 451. 



NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 365 

did not attain until the sixth century, under the Emperor 
Justinian. 1 In this canon, as Seleucia has the Arabian name 
of Almodajen, Eenaudot concludes that these canons were 
not formed until the time of Mahomet. 

The Constitutions, edited by Echellensis, still less than the 
eighty-four canons, maintain the pretension of dating back to 
the Council of Mcsea. 

a. The first division of these Constitutions, that de Monacliis 
et Anachoretis, presupposes an already strong development 
of monasticism. 2 It speaks of convents for men and women, 
abbots and abbesses, the management of convents, and the like. 
But we know that, at the time of the Council of Mcsea, 
monasticism thus organized had scarcely made its appearance. 
Even in the first times after our Synod, there were none of 
those large convents mentioned in the Arabic canons, but only 
hamlets of monks, consisting of groups of cabins. 

&. The second series of Arabian Constitutions comprises 
nineteen chapters. 3 It also speaks of convents, abbots, the 
property and possession of convents, etc. (c. 110). The 
eighth canon shows that there were already many monks 
who were priests. Now this was certainly not the case at the 
time of the Council of Mcsea, when monasticism was in its 
infancy. The ninth chapter speaks of Constantinople as the 
imperial residence (urbs regid), which again betrays a later 
period. 

c. The third series comprises twenty-five chapters. 4 The 
Mcene Creed, which is contained in it, has here already the 
addition which was made to it in the second (Ecumenical 
Council. The Arabic Creed, besides, is much longer than 
the genuine one. The Orientals added several phrases, as 
Abraham Echellensis has remarked. 5 This Arabic Creed 
asserts that Jesus Christ is perfectus homo, vera, anima intel- 
lectuali et mtionali prceditus ; words betraying an intention 
of opposing Apollinarism, as well as those following : duos 
hdbentes naturas, ducts voluntates, duos operationes, in una per 
sona, etc., which seem to be a protest against the heresy of 
the Monophysites and the Monothelites. 

1 Eenaudot, I.e. p. 73. 2 Mansi, ii. 1011 sqq. 3 Mansi, ii. 1019 sqq. 
4 Mansi, ii. 1030 sqq. 6 Mansi, ii. 1079. 



366 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Following this Creed, the Arabic text relates, falsely, that 
Constantino entreated the bishops assembled at Nicsea tc 
give the name of Constantinople to Byzantium, and to raise 
his bishopric to the rank of an archbishopric, equal to that 
of Jerusalem. 1 

The decrees of this last series, examined in detail, also 
show that they are more recent than the Council of Nicsea, 
by mentioning customs of later origin. Thus the tenth chapter 
commands the baptism of infants ; the twelfth and thirteenth 
chapters, again, concern monks and nuns ; the fourteenth 
chapter finds it necessary to forbid that children should be 
raised to the diaconate, and more especially to the priesthood 
and episcopate. 

We may therefore sum up the certain proofs resulting 
from all these facts, by affirming that these Arabic canons 
are not genuine ; and all the efforts of Turrianus, Abraham 
Echellensis, and Cardinal d Aguirre, cannot prevent an im 
partial observer from coming to this opinion even with regard 
to some of those canons which they were anxious to save, 
while abandoning the others. 2 Together with the authenticity 
of these canons, the hypothesis of Abraham Echellensis also 
vanishes, which supposes them to have been collected by 
Jacob, the celebrated Bishop of Nisibis, who was present at 
the Mcene Synod. They belong to a later period. Assemani 
offers another supposition, supporting it by this passage from 
Ebed-jesu : 3 "Bishop Maruthas of Tagrit 4 translated the 
seventy-three canons of Mcsea." Assemani believes these 
seventy-three canons to be identical with the eighty-four 
Arabic canons, but such identity is far from being proved. 
Even the number of the canons is different ; and if it were 
not so, we know, from what we saw above, that several of 
the Arabic canons indicate a more recent period than those of 
Bishop Maruthas. It is probable that Maruthas really trans- 

1 The falseness of all this is evident from the fact that Byzantium was not 
aised by Constantino to the dignity of the metropolis until the year 330. 

2 Cf. Pagi, Grit, in Annales Baron, ad aim. 325, n. 45 ; Pearson, Vindida 
EpisL Ignat. P. i. p. 177; Richer, Hist. Councils-General, i. 110; Ludovici, 
Prref. ad Ittig. Hist. Condi. Nic. 

3 Sec. xiv. 4 Sec. v. 

5 Assemani, Biblioth. Orient, i. 23, 195 ; Angelo Mai, I.e. Praf. p. vii. 



NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 367 

lated seventy-three canons, supposed to be Nicene ; that is 
to say, that he had in his hands one of those MSS. spoken of 
above, which contained various collections of canons falsely 
attributed to the Council of Nicsea. 1 

It will be asked why in some parts of the East they should 
have attributed so great a number of canons to the Council of 
NicEea. It is not difficult to explain the mistake. We know, 
indeed, that the canons of various councils were at a very 
early period collected into one corpus ; and in this corpus the 
canons of Mcaea always had the first place, on account of 
their importance. It happened afterwards, that either acciden 
tally or designedly, some copyists neglected to give the names 
of the councils to those canons which followed the Mcene. 
We have already seen that even at Eome there was a copy 
containing, siib uno titulo, the canons of Nicsea and those of 
Sarclica. When these copies were circulated in the East, that 
which might have been foreseen took place in course of time : 
viz., from a want of the spirit of criticism, all the later canons 
which followed after the true canons were attributed to the 
Council of Mcaea. 

But it must also be said that certain learned men, especially 
Baronius 2 and the Spanish Cardinal d Aguirre, 3 have tried 
hard to prove, from the only Greek and Latin memorials, and 
without these Arabic canons, that the- Synod of Nicsea pub 
lished more than twenty canons. 

a. The Synod, said Aguirre, certainly set forth a canon on 
the celebration of Easter ; and a proof of this is, that Balsamon, 
in his commentary upon the first canon of Antioch, mentions 
this Nicerie canon as being in existence. There must there 
fore, concludes Aguirre, have been above twenty ISTicene 
canons. But it may be answered that the ancient authors 
make no mention of a canon, but only of a simple ordinance, 
of the Council of Nicsea respecting the celebration of the 
Easter festival ; and it is indeed certain that such a rule was 
given by the Council, as is proved by the synodical decree. 4 
As for Balsamon, he says exactly the contrary to what Car- 

1 Cf. Spittler, Geschichte des Canonlschen Reclits, S. 108, note. 

2 Ann ales, ad.ann. 325, n. 156 sqq. 

8 Collect. Condi. Hispan. i. 1 j Appar. Diss. 8. 4 Socrat. i. 9. 



368 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

dinal d Aguirre maintains, namely, Iv <yovv TO?? Kavocrt, 
ev NiKala Trarepwv rovro ov% evprjTai,, et? 5e ra TrpaKri/ca 
TrpwTT;? (TvvoSov vpi(7KTai, j 1 that is to say, "which is not to 
le found in the canons of the Fathers of Nicaea, but which 
was there discussed." D Aguirre evidently did not consult 
the Greek text of Balsamon, but probably made use of the 
inaccurate Latin translation which Schelstrate has given of it. 2 
But even admitting that some later writer may have given as a 
canon the Mcene rule about Easter, even the nature of things 

O 

shows that it could only be a disciplinary measure. Perhaps 
also a passage of the Synod held at Carthage in 419 had. 
been misunderstood. This Synod says that the Council of 
Nicaea re-established the antiqiius canon upon the celebration 
of Easter ; 3 which from the context means, and can mean, only 
this the ancient rule for the celebration of Easter was re 
stored by the Council of Mcsea, to be observed by the genera 
tions following. 

I. Cardinal d Aguirre says, in the second place, that if some 
very ancient authors are to be trusted, the acts of the Coun 
cil of Nicsea were very voluminous, and he concludes from 
this that there must have been more than twenty canons ; but 
we have explained above that it is very doubtful whether 
these acts contained more than the Creed, the canons, and the 
synodical letter ; and even if the acts were really very volu 
minous, it does not necessarily follow that they contained a 
larger number of canons. The acts of the Council of Ephesus 
are very extensive ; but nevertheless that Council published 
only six canons, eight at the most, if we consider as canons 
two decrees which had a special object. 

c. Aoriirre suggests further, that the Arians burnt the com- 

. o oo * 

plete acts of the Council of Mcsea, and allowed only these 
twenty canons to remain, in order to have it believed that 
the Council had decreed no others. Baronius 4 also makes a 
similar supposition, but there is not the slightest 5 proof of 



1 In Bevereg. I.e. i. 430. 2 Condi. Antioch. Antwerp 1681. 

3 Hard. i. 1428, n. 21 ; Mansi, iv. 4.15, in the note. 

4 Baronius, ad aim. 325, n. 62. 

5 The letter of S. Athanasius to Mark, speaking of that, is evidently spurious. 
See above, sec. 23. 



NIC^A : NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 369 

such an act on the part of the Arians ; and if the Arians had 
done as he suggests, they would certainly have burnt the 
Creed of Mcsea itself, which contains their most express con 
demnation. 

d. It is well-nigh superfluous to refute those who have 
maintained that the Synod of Mcsea lasted three years, and 
who add that it must certainly have promulgated above 
twenty canons during all that time. The Synod began and 
ended in the year 325 : it was after the close of it that the 
Emperor Constantine celebrated his mcennalia. 1 The supposi 
tion that the Council lasted for three years is a fable invented 
subsequently by the Orientals ; but even were it true, if the 
Council really lasted for three years, one could not therefore 
affirm that it must have promulgated a great number of 
decrees. 

e. The following passage from a letter of Pope Julius I. 
has been also made use of to prove that the Council of 
Mcsea published more than twenty canons : " The bishops at 
Mcsea rightly decided that the decrees of one council may be 
revised by a subsequent one." This letter is to be found in 
the works of S. Athanasius. 2 But Pope Julius I. does not 
say that the Mcene Fathers made a canon of their decision ; 
on the contrary, he appears to consider that it was by their 
example, in judging afresh the Arian question, already judged 
at Alexandria, that the Mcene Fathers authorized these re 
visions. 

/. When the Patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian, appealed 
to Eome against the decision of the Eobber-Synod of Ephesus, 
Pope Leo the Great, in two letters addressed to the Emperor 
Theodosius, appealed in his turn to a decree of the Council of 
Mcsea, to show that such appeals were permissible. 3 Cardinal 
d Aguirre immediately concludes that Pope Leo there quotes 
a canon which is not among the twenty authentic ones. The 
Cardinal did not see that Pope Leo here commits the same 
mistake .as Pope Zosimus, by quoting a canon of Sardica as 
one of those passed at Mcsea. 

[ The twentieth year of his reign. Upon the duration of the Council of 
Nictiea, cf. sees. 26 and 44. 

2 Apologia contra Arianos, c. 22, Opp. i. 112, ed. Patav. 3 Epp. 43 and 44. 

2 A 



3 JO HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

g. It is less easy to explain these words of S. Ambrose, 
quoted by Baronius and Aguirre : Sed prius cognoscamus, non 
solum hoc apostolum de episcopo et presbytero statuisse, sed etiam 
Patres in concilia Nicceno tractatus addidisse, negue clericum 
quemdam dcbere esse, qui secunda conjugia sortitus} An ex 
amination of this text shows, however, that S. Ambrose does 
not attribute to the Council of Mcsea a canon properly so 
called ; he uses only the expression tractatus. The Benedic 
tines of S. Maur, besides, say very reasonably on this passage 
of S. Ambrose : " As Pope Zosimus mistook a canon of Sardica 
for one of Mcsea, so S. Ambrose may have read in his collectio 
of the Acts of Mceea some rule de digamis non ordinandis, 
belonging to another synod, and may have thought that this 
rule also emanated from the Council of Mcsea." 

h. We have to examine an expression of S. Jerome, which 
it has been said will show that more than twenty canons 
were promulgated at Mcsea. S. Jerome says in his Prwfatio 
ad librum Judith: 2 Apud Hebrceos liber Judith inter agio- 
graplia legitur, cujus auctoritas ad roloranda ilia, quce in con- 
tentionem veniunt, minus idonea judicatur. . . . Sed quia hunc 
librum Synodus Niccena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum 
legitur computasse, acquievi postulationi vestrw, etc. If we con 
clude from these words that the Fathers of Mcsea gave a 
canon of the genuine books of the Bible, we certainly draw 
an inference which they do not sustain. The meaning seems 
rather to be this : the Mcene Fathers quoted this book of 
Judith, that is to say, made use of it as a canonical book, and 
so in fact recognised it. In this way the Council of Ephesus 
implicitly acknowledged the Epistle to the Hebrews, by ap 
proving of the anathemas levelled by Cyril against Nestorius, 
in which this epistle is quoted as a book of the Bible. 3 It is 
true that, in some memorials left to us by the Council of Mcsea, 
we find no such quotation from the book of Judith ; but the 
difficulty does not lie there: the quotation may have been 
made viva wee in the Council ; and this fact may have been 
laid hold of, and preserved in some document composed by a 

1 Epist. ad Vercellensem episcopum, Opp. ed. Bened. iii. 1127. 

2 Opp. x. 39 ed. Migne, i. 1170 ed. BB. 
Natal. Alex. Hist. Ecd. I.e. 387, a. 



NIOEA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 371 

member of the Council. Besides, S. Jerome said only these 
words, " legitur computasse" that is to say, we read that the 
Council of Mcsea did so. If the Council had really made a 
canon on this subject, S. Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, 
and others, would not have subsequently refused to reckon 
the book of Judith in the number of canonical books. S. 
Jerome himself in another passage * is doubtful of the cano- 
nicity of the book ; he therefore can have attached no great 
importance to what he said of the Council of JSTiccea on the 
subject of the book of Judith. Finally, the Council of Lao- 
- dicea, more recent than that of Mcsea, in its sixtieth canon, 
does not reckon the book of Judith among the canonical books : 
such exclusion would have been utterly impossible if the pre 
tended canon had been really promulgated at Mcsea in 325. 

i. It has been attempted also to decide the controversy 
now under consideration by the high authority of S. Augustine, 
who in his 213th epistle (in earlier editions the 110th) says: 
" Even in the lifetime of Valerius, I was appointed coadjutor- 
bishop in Hippo, not being aware that this had been pro 
hibited by the Council of Nicsea." It has been said and 
Cardinal d Aguirre especially insisted that this prohibition 
is not to be found in the twenty canons ; but he is mistaken : 
the prohibition is there; it is very explicit in the eighth 



canon. 2 



/. We proceed to an objection taken from Pope Innocent I., 
who says in his twenty-third epistle, that at Mcaea it was for 
bidden that any one should be ordained priest who had served 
in war after his baptism. 3 This prohibition, indeed, is not 
to be found in the twenty Mcene canons ; but an attentive 
reading of Innocent i. s epistle leads us to ask if Innocent 
really considered this prohibition as proceeding from the 
Council of Mcsea. He says, in fact : " You know yourselves 
the rules of Nicsea about ordination, tamen aliquam partem, 
gim de ordinationilus est proviso,, inserendam putavi" It is 

1 He says of the book of Judith in his Epistola ad Furiam: "Si cui tamen 
placet volumen recipere." Opp. i. 559, ed. Migne ; and Commentar. in Ar/yceum, 
cap. i. v, 5, 6, p. 1394, t. vi. ed. Migne. 

! This canon ends with these words, "vet ^ lv ry voXu $uo \<r tf x,oxot 
Mansi, ii. 672. 

3 Mansi, iii. 1068 sq. 



372 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

not known whether the two words aligua pars ought to be 
understood of a rule of Nicsea, or of a rule taken from 
another synod, and treating of the same subject. Innocent 
twice mentions this prohibition to ordain soldiers as priests 
once in the forty-third epistle, 1 where he in no way mentions 
the Council of Mcsea : the second time in Ep. i. c. 2, 2 where 
it is true that in the context there is reference to the Council 
of Nicsea ; but in the passage itself, where the Pope recalls 
the prohibition, he does not rest upon the authority of that 
Council. In the passage the word item evidently means 
secundo, and not that the rule following is a decree of Nicsea. 
We might even admit that Pope Innocent intended to quote 
a Mcene rule, but that would prove nothing contrary to our 
position. The words quoted by the Pope are those of a 
Council of Turin, as has been thoroughly shown by Labbe. 3 
We must therefore conclude that Innocent made the same 
mistake as his predecessor Zosimus. 

1. Gelasius of Cyzicus gives nine constitutiones* exclusive 
of the twenty authentic canons ; and at the close of Book n. 
c. 29 he says explicitly, " The bishops of Nicsea gave various 
similar cHo/ruTrcocret? ;" hence it has been said that he refutes 
our thesis. But these constitutiones are purely dogmatical 
(Xoryo? &8tf0-ffaXitfo9) : therefore they are not canons, and could 
not have increased the number to more than twenty ; but 
and this is the principal point they are most certainly 
spurious : none of the ancient writers are acquainted with 
them ; no one among the moderns has endeavoured to defend 
their historical value ; most do not even mention them as, 
for instance, Tillemont and Orsi ; and those w r ho quote them 
content themselves with denying their genuineness. 5 

m. According to Baronius and d Aguirre, Socrates/ the 

1 Mansi, iii. 1046. 2 Mansi, iii. 1033. 

3 Mansi, iii. 1069, ad marg. 4 Lib. ii. c. 30. 

5 See Ittig. Hist. Condi. Nic. 68, and the quotations accompanying that 
history ; Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen, Leipz. 1780, Bd. i. S. 
438. The second of these diatyposes is probably directed against the Euty- 
chians, and consequently it may be considered as subsequent to the Council of 
Nicsea. Dorscheus has written an especial dissertation upon the fifth 
(on the holy communion). 

Socrat. iii. 20. 



NICLEA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 373 

Greek historian of the Church, is erroneously represented as 
having said that the Council of Nicsea commanded the use 
of the doxology thus worded, " Glory be to the Father and 
to the Son," in order to show the equality of the Father and 
the Son ; whilst the Arians proposed this form, " Glory be 
to the Father through the Son." But in the said passage 
Socrates simply affirms that there was one party at Antioch 
which made use of the one form, and another which used the 
other, and that the Arian Bishop Leontius tried to prevent 
the praises of God being sung according to the TrapdSocris of 
the Council of Nicsea, that is, to prevent their using forms 
in accordance with the Nicene doctrine. Valesius also re 
marks, when translating that passage from Socrates, that the 
Greek historian nowhere says what Baronius and Aguirre 
attribute to him. 1 We know, indeed, that before the rise of 
the Arian heresy the Fathers of the Church often altered the 
form of the doxology, sometimes saying " by the Son," some 
times " and to the Son." But as the Arians would not use 
the form " and to the Son," and persisted in saying " by the 
Son," the orthodox in their turn gained the habit of saying 
almost exclusively, without there being any rule on the sub 
ject, " and to the Son." If there had been a rule, the orthodox 
bishops would not long subsequently have allowed the form 
" by the Son" to have been used. 2 

n. Pope Leo appealed repeatedly to the Council of Nicaea 
to show that the Patriarch of Constantinople wrongfully laid 
claim to a precedency over the Patriarchs of Alexandria and 
Antioch. 3 Aguirre hence concludes that the Pope must have 
had Mcene decrees before him which are not among the 
twenty canons recognised as authentic. It is easy to reply 
that S. Leo refers only to the sixth canon of Mcaea, which 
maintains the Archbishops of Alexandria and Antioch in their 
rights, and consequently implicitly forbids any other bishop 
to be placed above them. 

1 Cf. Ludovici, Prcefatio ad Ittig. Hist. Condi. N ic. 

2 Vgl. Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Bd. iv. Thl. i. S. 426 f. ; Ittig, I.e. 
51. 

3 Epp. 104, 105, 106, ed. Ballerin. vol. i. ; Epp. 78, 79, 80, cd. Quesnel (alias 
53, 54, 55). 



374 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

o. Notwithstanding the efforts of Cardinal d Aguirre, it 
is impossible to make a serious objection of what was said 
by the second Council of Aries, 1 held about the year 452. 
This Council expresses itself thus : magna synodus antea con- 
stiluit that whoso falsely accused another of great crimes 
should be excommunicated to their life s end. 2 It is perfectly 
true, as has been remarked, that the twenty canons of Mcsea 
contain no such rule ; but it has been forgotten that, in mak 
ing use of the expression magna, synodus, the second Council 
of Aries does not mean the Council of Mcsea : it has in view 
the first Council of Aries, and particularly the fourteenth 
canon of that Council. 3 

p. The objection drawn from the Synod of Ephesus 4 is 
still only specious. The Council of Ephesus relies upon a 
decision of the Council of Mcsea in maintaining that the 
Church of Cyprus is independent of the Church of Antioch. 
Aguirre thought that this was not to be found in the twenty 
canons ; but it is not so, for the Council of Ephesus certainly 
referred to the sixth canon of Mcsea when it said : " The 
canon of the Fathers of Mcsea guaranteed to each Church 
the rank which it previously held." 

q. Again, it has been said that Atticus Bishop of Con 
stantinople 5 alludes to a canon not found among the twenty, 
when he indicates very precisely in a letter who those are, 
according to the rule of the Council of Mcsea, who ought to 
have literce formatce* But the document bearing the name 
of Bishop Atticus was unknown to the whole of antiquity ; 
it belongs only to the middle ages, and has certainly no 
greater value than the pseudo-Isidorian documents. 7 But if 
this memorial were authentic (Baronius accepts it as such 8 ), 
it would prove nothing against our position ; for Baronius 
himself tells us that the Fathers of Mcsea deliberated very 
secretly upon the form that the literce formatce ought to take, 
but made no canon upon the subject. 9 

r. The last witness of Aguirre has no greater weight. It 

1 Can. 24. 2 Hard. ii. 775. 3 Cf. Ludovici, Prcef. ad Ittig. I.e. 

4 Actio vii. Mansi, iv. 1468 ; Hard. i. 1620. 6 Sec. v. 

6 Hard. v. 1453. 7 Tillemont, M&noires, vi. 288, b. 

8 Ad aim. 325, n. 162 sq. 9 Cf. Natal. Alex. I.e. p. 387. 



NKLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 375 

is an expression of S. Basil s/ who affirms that the Council 
of ISTicasa made rules for the punishment of the guilty, that 
future sins might be avoided. Now the canons of Nicsea 
in our possession, as we shall see hereafter, authorize S. Basil 
to speak in this way. 2 Some other objections of less import 
ance not repeated by Aguirre might be noticed, Ifat they have 
been sufficiently exposed and refuted by Natalis Alexander. 3 

SEC. 42. Contents of the Nicene Canons. 

After having determined the number of authentic canons 
of the Council of Mcsea, we must now consider more closely 
their contents. The importance of the subject, and the 
historical value that an original text always possesses, has 
decided us to give the Greek text of the acts of the Council 
(according to the editions of Mansi and of Brims 4 ), together 
with a translation and a commentary intended to explain 
their meaning. 5 

CAN. 1. 

Ell Tt5 zv vo&o) VTTO laTp&v e%ei,povp<ytf0r), 7} VTTO /3ap/3dpa)v 
etferfjujOr}, ovros fjieverco ev ru> KXrjpO) el Se TI$ vyiatvcav eavrov 
efere/^e, TOVTOV /cat ev TU> K\r)pu> e^era^o/jLevov TreTravcrOai, Trpo- 
cnfjicei, KOL e/c TOV Sevpo fjL7]$eva TWV TOIOVTOIV %prjvat, irpocuyecrdai 
utcrirep Se TOVTO 7rpo^7]\ov ) ori Trepl rcov z jri rrj &evovTWv TO irpayfjua 
Kal TO\IJLWVTWV eavrovs etcre/jiveiv etp^Tat* OUTOJ? el Tiz/e? VITO 



1 Ep. 125, n. 3, vol. iii. p. 216, ed. BB. 

2 Cf. Ludovici, Prcef. ad Ittig. I.e. 

3 Fatal. Alex. I.e. p. 387 sqq. 

4 Mansi, Collectio Condi, ii. 668 sqq. ; Bruns, Canones apostolorum et con- 
ciliorum, scec. iv.-vii. Berol. 1839, i. 14 sq_q. Scipio Maffei discovered in the 
last century, in a manuscript of Verona, a very ancient Latin translation of 
the canons of ISTicsea different from those already known; for instance, that 
of Dionysius the Less, and of the Prisca. It is printed in the edition of the 
Works of S. Leo the Great "by the Ballerini, iii. 582 sqc[., and Mansi, I.e. vi. 
1195 sqq. 

5 Among the commentaries which we have used in making ours, we shall 
quote those which were composed in the middle ages by the Greeks Balsamon, 
Zonaras, and Aristeims : they are printed in Beveridge, Synodicon, sive Pandectce 
canonum, Oxon. 1672, i. 58 sqq. Beveridge has also edited one of them in 
the appendix of the second volume of his work, p. 44 sqq. Yan Espen has 
done the same, work in his Commentarius in canones et decreta, etc., Colon. 
1755, p. 85 sqq. ; as well as Professor Herbst in the TvJb. Theol. Quartalschrift, 
1822, S. 30 ff. 



376 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 




dpcov % Seo-TTOTwv evvov%l(f6i]<Tea> f 
TOVS TOLOVTOVS et? tc\r)pov Trpoaierai o Kava>v. 

" If a man has "been mutilated by physicians during sick 
ness, or by barbarians, he may remain among the clergy ; 
but if a man in good health has mutilated himself, he must 
resign his post after the matter has been proved among the 
clergy, and in future no one who has thus acted should be 
ordained. But as it is evident that what has just been said 
only concerns those who have thus acted with intention, and 
have dared to mutilate themselves, those who have been made 
eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters will be allowed, 
conformably to the canon, to remain among the clergy, if in 
other respects they are worthy." 

This ordinance of Mcsea agrees well with the directions 
contained in the apostolic canons 2124 inclusive (2023 
according to another way of numbering them), and it is to 
these apostolic canons that the Council makes allusion by the 
expression o fcava)v. It was not Origen alone who, a long 
time before the Council of Mcasa, had given occasion for such 
ordinances : we know, by the first apology of S. Justin, 1 that 
a century before Origen, a young man had desired to be muti 
lated by physicians, for the purpose of completely refuting 
the charge of vice which the heathen brought against the 
worship of Christians. S. Justin neither praises nor blames 
this young man : he only relates that he could not obtain the 
permission of the civil authorities for his project, that he 
renounced his intention, but nevertheless remained virgo all 
his life. It is very probable that the Council of Mcsea was 
induced by some fresh similar cases to renew the old in 
junctions ; it was perhaps the Arian Bishop Leontius who 
was the principal cause of it. S. Athanasius, 2 and after 
him Theodoret 3 and Socrates, 4 relate in fact that Leontius, a 
Phrygian by birth, 5 and a clergyman at Aiitioch, lived with a 
sulintroducta named Eustolion ; and as he could not separate 

1 Justin. Apol. c. 29. 

2 Athanasius, Apologia de fug a sua, c. 26 ; and Historia Arianorum ad 
monachos, c. 28. 

3 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl ii. 24. 4 Socrates, Hist. Eocl. ii. 26. 
6 Theodoret, I.e. ii. 10. 



NKLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 377 

himself from her, and wished to prevent her leaving him, 
mutilated himself. His bishop, Eustathius, had deposed him, 
more especially for this last act ; but the Emperor Constan- 
tine afterwards made him by force Bishop of Antioch. 
Leontius became afterwards one of the most bitter opponents 
of S. Athanasius. This ordinance of Mcsea was often renewed 
in force by subsequent synods and by bishops; and it has 
been inserted in the Corpus juris canonici} 

CAN. 2. 

ETreiSrj 7ro\\d TJTOI VTTO dvdy/crjs r) d\\ws 7reiyojj,evwv TWV 
dvOpco7ro)V eyeveTO Trapd TOV KCLVOVCL TOV 6KK\r)<Tia(TTiKov, wcrre 
dvQpcoTTovs ajro eOviicov /3lov dpTi Trpo(re\06vTas 777 Trio-ret,, KOI 
ev 6\tyq> xpbvw KaTr)j(r)6evTa<? ev9vs ITTL TO Tcvev^aTiKov \ovrpov 



dyeiv, /cal d^ua TO) ftaTmo Qrjvai, Trpoadyew et? eTria-Koyrrjv TJ 



eSo^ev e%eiv, TOV \OLTTOV jjuqSev TOLOVTO 
<ylve<T0ai KOI yap Kal %pbvov el TU> KaTTJXOV/jLevq), KOI yu-era TO 
/3d7TTLcr/jLa SoKi/jLacrlas 7r\elovos cracfres yap TO d7roaTO\iKov 
TO \eyov Mrj veb<f>VTOV, r iva fjirj TV(pa)del<> et? Kplp,a 
Kal TraylSa TOV c)ta/3oXoi> el Be Trpo iovTos TOV %pbvov 
Ti djjidpT rj^a evpeOfj irepl TO irpbo-coirov, KOI e\ey^oi,To 
VTTO Siio r) Tpiwv papTvptov, TreTrava6a) b TOLOVTOS TOV K\rjpov 6 
8e irapa Tavra TTOLCOV, a>9 virevavTia Ty /jLeydXy a vvoo q) dpavv- 
vbfjbevos, avTos KivSvveucrei, Trepl TOV K\rjpov. 2 

" Seeing that many things, either from necessity or on 
account of the pressure of certain persons, have happened 
contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, so that men who have 
but just turned from a heathen life to the faith, and who 
have only been instructed during a very short time, have been 
brought to the spiritual laver, to baptism, and have even 
been raised to the office of priest or bishop, it is right that 
in future this should not take place, for time is required for 
sound instruction in doctrine, and for further trial after 
baptism. For the apostolic word is clear, which says : 3 

1 C. 7, Dist. lv. ; and c. 3, x. (f. 20). 

2 Zo e ga has discovered an ancient Coptic translation of this canon ; it was 
published at Paris in 1852 by Pitra, in his Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 525. 
This Coptic translation does not verbally agree with the original Greek text, but 
entirely with its meaning. 

3 1 Tim. iii. 6. 



378 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Not a novice, lest through pride he fall into condemnation, 
and into the snare of the devil. If hereafter a cleric is 
guilty of a grave offence, proved by two or three witnesses, 
he must resign his spiritual office. Any one who acts against 
this ordinance, and ventures to be disobedient to this great 
Synod, is in danger of being expelled from the clergy." 

It may be seen by the very text of this canon, that it was 
already forbidden to baptize, and to raise to the episcopate or 
to the priesthood any one who had only been a catechumen 
for a short time : this injunction is in fact contained in the 
eightieth (seventy-ninth) apostolical canon ; and according to 
that, it would be older than the Council of Mcaea. There 
have been nevertheless certain cases in which, for urgent 
reasons, an exception has been made to the rule of the Council 
of Mcsea, for instance, that of S. Ambrose. 1 The canon of 
Mcsea does not seem to allow such an exception, but it might 
be justified by the apostolical canon which says, at the close : 
" It is not right that any one who has not yet been proved 
should be a teacher of others, unless by a peculiar divine 
grace." The expression of the canon of Nicsea, ^TV^IKOV TL 
a/jidprrj/jia, is not easy to explain : some render it by the 
Latin words animate peccatum, believing that the Council has 
here especially in view sins of the flesh ; but, as Zonaras has 
said, all sins are fyvyiK.a afjLaprrjfjiara. We must then under 
stand the passage in question to refer to a capital and very 
serious offence, as the penalty of deposition annexed to it 
points out. 

These words have also given offence, el Be Trpoiovro? rov 
Xpovov; that is to say, "It is necessary henceforward," etc., 
understanding that it is only those who have been too quickly 
ordained who are threatened with deposition in case they 
are guilty of crime ; but the canon is framed, and ought to be 
understood, in a general manner : it applies to all other clergy 
men, but it appears also to point out that greater severity 
should be shown towards those who have been too quickly 
ordained. Others have explained the passage in this manner : 
" If it shall become known that any one who has been too 
quickly ordained was guilty before his baptism of any serious 

1 Tlieoclor. Hist. Eccl. iv. 6 ; Eufin. Hist. Eccl. ii. 11. 



NKLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 379 

offence, lie ought to be deposed." This is the interpretation 
given by Gratian, 1 but it must be confessed that such a transla 
tion does violence to the text. This is, I believe, the general 
sense of the canon, and of this passage in particular : " Hence 
forward no one shall be baptized or ordained quickly. As to 
those already in orders (without any distinction between those 
who have been ordained in due course and those who have 
been ordained too quickly), the rule is that they shall be 
deposed if they commit a serious offence. Those who are 
guilty of disobedience to this great Synod, either by allowing 
themselves to be ordained or even by ordaining others pre 
maturely, are threatened with deposition ipso facto, and for 
this fault alone." "We consider, in short, that the last words 
of the canon may be understood as well of the ordained as of 
the ordainer. 

CAN. 3. 

*A7rri<yopev(Tev KaOoKov q fteydX r] owoSos pyre ctricr/coTTa) 
Trpeafiureprp fjbrjre Sia/cova) /Arjre oXco? rivl TGOV ev rco 
e^elvcu avvelcraKTOv e%eiv, ir\rjv el /JLTJ dpa jUTjrepa rj 
rj Oelav, rj a JJLOVCI Trpoa-coira iraaav 



" The great Synod absolutely forbids, and it cannot be per 
mitted to either bishop, priest, or any other cleric, to have in 
his house a crvveio-atcros (siibintroducta), with the exception of 
his mother, sister, aunt, or such other persons as are free from 
all suspicion." 

In the first ages of the Church, some Christians, clergymen 
and laymen, contracted a sort of spiritual marriage with un 
married persons, so that they lived together ; but there was 
not a sexual, but a spiritual connection between them, for 
their mutual spiritual advancement. 3 They were known by 
the name of oweuroKrot, ar/a7n)Tal } and sorores. That which 
began in the spirit, however, in many cases ended in the flesh ; 
on which account the Church very stringently forbade such 

1 Corpus jur. can. c. i. Dist. 48. 

2 Zoega has discovered a Coptic translation of this canon also : it was inserted 
by Pitra in the Spidlegium Solesmense, i. 526. The Greek canon is very 
freely translated in it. 

3 Cf. the sermon of S. Chrysosrom, vpo; TBV; i%ovritf **f4ivovs 
and Beveridge, I.e. p. 46, b. 






380 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

unions, even with penalties more severe than those with 
which she punished concubinage : for it happened that Chris 
tians who would have recoiled from the idea of concubinage 
permitted themselves to form one of these spiritual unions, 
and in so doing fell. It is very certain that the canon of 
Nicaea forbids this species of union, but the context shows 
moreover that the Fathers had not these particular cases in 
view alone ; and the expression a-vvelaaicTos should be under 
stood of every woman who is introduced (crweicratfTo?) into 
the house of a clergyman for the purpose of living there. If 
by the word avvelcra/cTos was only intended the wife in this 
spiritual marriage, the Council would not have said, any 
Gvveio-ciKTos except his mother, etc.; for neither his mother 
nor his sister could have formed this spiritual union with 
the cleric. The injunction, then, does not merely forbid the 
GvveiaaKTos in the specific sense, but orders that " no woman 
must live in the house of a cleric, unless she be his mother," 
etc. Because this interpretation presents itself naturally to 
the mind, several ancient authors have read in the Greek 
text eTrelcraKTov instead of a-vveicraKTov ; for instance, the Em 
peror Justinian in his Novel 123 (c. 29), and Eufinus in his 
translation of the canon. 1 Several councils, amongst others 
the second of Tours (c. 11) and the fourth of Toledo (c. 42), 
have also received this reading, but wrongly, as is proved by 
the best Greek manuscripts. Beveridge, S. Basil, and Diony- 
sius the Less read awelcraKTov with us. 2 On the meaning of 
the last words of this canon, it has been doubted whether the 
Council allows all persons who are free from suspicion to live 
in the house of a clerk, as it is understood by Gratian ; 3 or 
whether the true translation is this : " And his sisters and 
aunts cannot remain unless they be free from all suspicion." 
Van Espen 4 explains the text in this manner, but this inter 
pretation does not seem altogether in accordance with the 
original. 

1 Hist. Ecd. i. 6. 2 Beveridge, I.e. pp. 45 and 46. 

3 Corpus jur. can. c. 16, Dist. 32. Inttrdixit per omnia sancta synodus, non 
episcopo, non presbytero, non diacono, vel alicui omnino, qui in clero est, licere 
subintroductam habere mulierem, nisi forte aut matrem, aut sororem, aut amUaiii, 
ant ctiam eas idoneas personas, qucefuglant suspiciones. 

4 Lc. p. 88. 



NIO32A : CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 381 

Another question has been raised on this subject, namely, 
whether it supposes the marriage of priests, or whether it 
orders celibacy, and then the real wives of clerics would be 
included in the word Gweicra/cToi. This last interpretation 
is that of Bellarmin ; but it is without foundation, for the 
a-vveicraKToi are here forbidden to all clerks, and we know that 
at this period those in minor orders were permitted to marry. 
In conclusion, it cannot be overlooked that this canon shows 
that the practice of celibacy had already spread to a great 
extent among the clergy; as even Fuchs 1 confesses, and as 
Natalis Alexander has also remarked. 2 The question of the 
relation of the Council of Eicsea to celibacy will be considered 
when we come to the history of Paphnutius. 

CAN. 4. 

Tpoa^Kei fiaXtcrra fjiev VTTO irdvTcav TWV ev TTJ 
KaOio-Tao~6ai el Se Sucr^epe? eit) TO TOIOVTO, rj $ia 
Kare7rel<yovaav dvdyKTjv rj Sia fJLi]fco^ oSoO, e^aTravros rpeis eirl 



TO avr crvvayo/Aevovs, crv/jLrjcov ^ivofjbvwv KOL T&V aTrowrwv KOI 
Sia 



, Tore TTJV 
TO Se Kvpo? Ta)v ^ivo^kv^v Bio oo~0ai, Kaff eKao T rjv eirap^lav 



" The bishop shall be appointed by all (the bishops) of 
the eparchy (province) ; if that is not possible on account of 
pressing necessity, or on account of the length of journeys, 
three (bishops) at the least shall meet, and proceed to the 
imposition of hands (consecration) with the permission of 
those absent in writing. The confirmation of what is done 
belongs by right, in each eparchy, to the metropolitan." 

The Church was not obliged in principle to conform itself 
to the territorial divisions of the states or of the provinces in 
establishing its own territorial divisions. If, however, it often 
accepted these civil divisions as models for its own, it was to 
facilitate the conduct of business, and to prevent any disrup- 

1 Fuchs, Bibliotliek der Kirchenversammlunyen (Library of the Councils), 
Leipzig 1780, Thl. i. S. 392. 

2 Natal. Alex. Hist. Ecd. sec. iv. Dissert. 19, Propos. ii. p. 802, ed. 
Venet. 1778. 

3 See, in Pitra, Spiciley. Solesmense, i. 526 sq., a Coptic translation of this 
canon newly discovered. 



382 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

tion of received customs. Thus the apostles often passed 
through the principal cities of one province for the purpose of 
preaching the gospel there before entering another, and after 
wards they treated the faithful of .that province as forming one 
community. For instance, S. Paul writes to the Church of God 
at Corinth, and to all the faithful of Achaia : * he unites, then, 
in his thoughts all the Christians of the province of Achaia 
and at the head of the Churches of that province he places 
that of Corinth, which was its political capital. He addresses 
in the same manner another of his letters " to the Churches of 
the Galatians," * again uniting in his mind all the communities 
of that civil province. The result of this action of the Church 
was, that the bishops of the same province soon considered 
that there was a certain bond between them, and the bishop of 
the capital thus gained insensibly a sort of pre-eminence over his 
colleagues in the province. This pre-eminence could only be 
based in some cases on the civil importance of the capital; 
but it must not be forgotten that the civil capital was often 
also the ecclesiastical, as being the first city in the province 
in which a Christian Church was founded, from which the 
gospel was made known to the other cities in the province. 
It is especially the civil importance that the Synod of Antioch 
of 341 had in view when it said, in its ninth canon: "The 
bishops of each eparchy must understand that it is the bishop 
of the metropolis (political capital) who has charge of the 
business of the eparchy, because all meet at the metropolis to 
transact their business." The word eparchy here most cer 
tainly designates the civil province ; and evidently the Synod 
wished to make the civil divisions the basis of ecclesiastical 
divisions. The Council of Nicsea follows the same course: it 
orders in this fourth canon that a bishop shall be chosen by 
the other bishops of the whole eparchy (political province) ; and 
in accordance with the ninth canon of the Synod of Antioch, 
it decides that the metropolitan shall have charge of the 
business of the eparchy. The first remark that there is to 
make on this canon is, then, to point out that the Council of 
Nicsea accepts the political division as the basis of the eccle- 



1 2 Cor. i. 1. 

2 Gal. i, 2. 



NIC^EA : CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 

siastical division; but there were afterwards exceptions to 
this rule. 1 

The second remark relates to the method of proceeding in 
the election of bishops. In apostolic times the apostles them 
selves chose the bishops. During the period immediately 
after apostolic times it was the disciples of the apostles, eXAo- 
tyifjLoi az/fy>69, as S. Clement calls them. Thus such men as 
Titus and Timothy nominated bishops ; but the election had 
to be approved by the whole community, (yvvev^oK^o-da^ TTJ? 
Kii\r]o-la^ 7rdo-7)s, as S. Clement says again ; 2 so that here a new 
agent appears in the choice of a bishop : the community has 
to make known whether it considers the person elected fitted 
or unfitted for the charge. After the death of the disciples of 
the apostles this practice changed ; there were no longer any 
bishops who had such an uncontested ascendency over the 
others. A letter of S. Cyprian tells us in a very clear manner 
how episcopal elections and consecrations were then carried 
on. " In almost all provinces," he writes, " the business is 
managed in this manner : The nearest bishops in the province 
meet in the city for which the election is to be held. The 
bishop is then elected plebe prcesente ; the people are bound 
to be present at the election, for singulorum vitam plenissime 
novit. The episcopal dignity is after that conferred universes 
fraternitatis suffragio and episcoporum judicio" Beveridge 
has explained this very important passage in the follow 
ing manner. 4 The bishops of the province choose their 
future colleague, and the fraternitas that is to say, the people 
and the clergy of the city decide whether the choice is 
acceptable, whether the candidate is worthy of the episcopate. 
It seems to me that Beveridge thus does violence to the 
expression suffragio, and does not quite accurately translate 
judicio. Suffragium is derived from sub and frango. 5 It pro- 

1 Cf. upon this question a learned and very acute article by Friedrich Maassen, 
J. U. Dr. , Der Primat des Bisclwfs von Rom und die alien Patriarchalkirchen 
(the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the ancient patriarchal Churches). 
Em Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hierarchic, insbesondere zur Erlduterung des 
sechsten Canons des ersten allg. Concils von Nicda, Bonn 1853, S. 1-13. 

2 dementis Epist. i. ad Corinth, c. 44 ; ed. Patrum apostol. by Hefele, ed. iii. 
p. 116. 3 Epist. 68. 4 Z.c. p. 47. 

5 [These etymological remarks are very doubtful. See "White s Diet. ED.] 



384 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

perly means a fragment a shred or scrap and refers to the 
shell which the ancients used for voting in the assemblies of 
the people. This expression, then, ought here to signify that 
the people, the community, had the right of voting, but that 
the right of deciding the judwium was reserved to the 
bishops of the province. Van Espen gives the same explana 
tion that we do in his canon law. 1 The fmternitas, he says 
that is to say, the clergy and people of the community 
who are interested in the choice had the right of presentation ; 
the bishops had afterwards to decide. They had then the 
principal part to perform. In certain cases the bishops elected 
and consecrated a candidate sine prcema, plebis electione for 
instance, when the people would undoubtedly have made a 
bad choice. As it was by the judwium of the bishops that 
the new bishop was appointed, so it was also their duty to 
consecrate the newlv elected. 

/ 

The Council of Mcsea thought it necessary to define by 
precise rules the duties of the bishops who took part in these 
episcopal elections. It decided, (a) that a single bishop of 
the province was not sufficient for the appointment of another ; 
(6) three at the least should meet, and (c) they were not to 
proceed to election without the written permission of the 
absent bishops ; it was necessary (d) to obtain afterwards the 
approval of the metropolitan. The Council thus confirms the 
ordinary metropolitan division, in its two most important 
points, namely, the nomination and ordination of bishops, and 
the superior position of the metropolitan. The third point 
connected with this division namely, the provincial synod 
will be considered under the next canon. 

Meletius was probably the occasion of this canon/ It may 
be remembered that he had nominated bishops without the 
concurrence of the other bishops of the province, and without 
the approval of the metropolitan of Alexandria, and had thus 
occasioned a schism. This canon was intended to prevent 
the recurrence of such abuses. The question has been 
raised 2 as to whether the fourth canon speaks only of the 
choice of the bishop, or whether it also treats of the consecra- 

1 P. i. tit. 13, n. 10. 

* Cf. Van Espen, Commentarius in canones, etc., p. 89. 



NICvEA : CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 385 

i 

tion of the newly elected. We think, with Van Espen, that 
it treats equally of both, as well of the part which the 
bishops of the province should take in an episcopal election, 
as of the consecration which completes it. 

The Council of Nicsea had a precedent in the first apostolic 
canon, and in the twentieth canon of Aries, for the establish 
ment of this rule. The canon of JSTicsea was afterwards in 
its turn reproduced and renewed by many councils, by that 
of Laodicea (c. 12), of Antioch (c. 19), by the fourth Synod of 
Toledo (c. 19), the second of Nicsea (c. 13) : it is also repro 
duced in the Codex Ecclesice Afric. (c. 13). It has been put 
into execution in the Greek Church as well as in the Latin 
Church, and inserted in all collections of ecclesiastical laws, 
especially in the Corpus juris canonici. 1 

It has been, however, interpreted in different ways. The 
Greeks had learnt by bitter experience to distrust the inter 
ference of princes and earthly potentates in episcopal elections. 
Accordingly, they tried to prove that this canon of Nicaea 
took away from the people the right of voting at the nomina 
tion of a bishop, and confined the nomination exclusively to 
the bishops of the province. In order to obtain a solid ground 
for this practice, the seventh (Ecumenical Council held at 
Nicsea (c. 3) interpreted the canon before us in the sense that 
a bishop could be elected only by bishops ; and it threatens 
with deposition any one who should attempt to gain, by 
means of the temporal authority, possession of a bishopric. 2 
One hundred years later, the eighth (Ecumenical Council en 
forces the same rule, and decides, 3 in accordance " with former 
councils/ that a bishop must not be elected except by the 
college of bishops. 4 The Greek commentators, Balsamon and- 
others, therefore, only followed the example of these two great 
Councils in affirming that this fourth canon of Nicsea takes 
away from the people the right previously possessed of voting 
in the choice of bishops, and makes the election depend en 
tirely on the decision of the bishops 5 of the province. 

The Latin Church acted otherwise. It is true that with 
it also the people have been removed from episcopal elections, 

1 Can. c. 1, Dist 64. 2 Hard. Collect. Condi iv. 487. 

3 C. 22. 4 Hard. v. 909. 5 Beveridge, I.e. p. 47. 

2 B 



386 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

but this did not happen till later, about the eleventh century ;* 
and it was not the people only who were removed, but the 
bishops of the province as well, and the election was con 
ducted entirely by the clergy of the cathedral church. 2 The 
Latins then interpreted the canon of Mcsea as though it said 
nothing of the rights of the bishops of the province in the 
election of their future colleague (and it does not speak of it 
in a very explicit manner), and as though it determined these 
two points only : (a) that for the ordination of a bishop three 
bishops at least are necessary ; (&) that the right of confir 
mation rests with the metropolitan. 3 In the Latin Church 
this right of confirmation passed in course of time from the 
metropolitans to the Pope, particularly by the concordats of 
Aschaffenburg. 

CAN. 5. 

lie pi TWI/ aKoivcDV^TWv ryevofjbevcov, elre TCOV eV ru> K\rjpw efre 
ev \aiKqj Taj/marij VTTO TWV KO$ efcdaTrjv eTrap^iav eTTLcncoTTCov 
Kpareirco ; fyvco/jirj Kara rov KCLVOVCL rov $ia>yopevovTa, TOU? v 
erepwv diro^KiriOevra^ v<p erepwv pr) irpocrLecrOai. e 

7) <f>l\oVUc{q 7J TIVI TOiavTrj arfiiq rov 
rye<yevvr)Tcu. tva ovv TOVTO rrjv TrpeTrovcrav et^eracnv 

^X eiv ^^ ev , e/cdo-rov eviavrov 
eirap^lav 8t9 ToO erov 5 crwoSoi/v <yivecr6ai) e iva KOivfj TrdvTWV 

&jrap%ia$ eVl TO avrb crvvayo/jievcovj ra 
efera^otro, Kal ourw? ol ofJLo\o<yov[Jiva)S Trpoo-Ke/cpov- 
TW eTTLCTKOTTti) Kara \oyov dtcoivoowrjToi, Trapa iracnv elvai 
av ra> KOLVM TWV eTricrKOTTtov &6t;r} TTJV (pi,\av- 
6 pwrrorepav virep CLVTWV eKdeaOai tyrifyov at Se crvvoSot, <yivecr- 
fjiia [lev irpo r^? Teo-crapaKocrTTJSj "va iracr?)? futep(rfyv%laf 
TO Swpov /caOapbv TrpocrcfreprjTai, TU> Seu> } Sevrepa 
$e irepl TOV TOV f^eroTrcopov /caipov* 

" As regards the excommunicated, the sentence passed 
by the bishops of each province shall have the force of law, 
in conformity with the canon which says : He who has been 
excommunicated by some shall not be admitted by others. 

1 Van Espen, Jus ecclesiastic. P. i. tit. 13, c. 1, n. 5. 

2 Van Espen, I.e. c. 2, n. 1, 2, 3. 

3 Cf. c. 8, Dist. 64 ; c. 20, 32, 44, x. de elect, (i. 6). 

* Cf. in the Spicil. Solesm. a Coptic translation of this canon. 



NKLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 387 

Care must, however, be taken to see that the "bishop has 
not passed this sentence of excommunication from narrow- 
mindedness, from a love of contradiction, or from some feeling 
of hatred. In order that such an examination may take 
place, it has appeared good to order that in each province a 
synod shall be held twice a year, composed of all the bishops 
of the province : they will make all necessary inquiries that each 
may see that the sentence of excommunication has been justly 
passed on account of some determined disobedience, and until 
the assembly of bishops may be pleased to pronounce a milder 
judgment on them. These synods are to be held, the one before 
Lent, in order that, having put away all low-mindedness,we may 
present a pure offering to God, and the second in the autumn." 

As we have already remarked, the Council in this canon 
again takes as a basis divisions by metropolitan provinces, by 
instituting provincial synods ; and it lays down for them one 
part of the business which should occupy them. 

Before the Council of Mcsea, ecclesiastical law had already 
forbidden that any one who had been excommunicated should 
be admitted by another bishop ; the twelfth (thirteenth) apos 
tolical canon even threatens a bishop who should do so with 
excommunication. This rule of the Council of Nictea, that a 
sentence of excommunication passed by a bishop should be 
examined by a provincial synod which had the right to annul 
it, is found, if not literally, at least in sense, in the thirty- 
sixth apostolic canon (thirty-eighth), which says that a pro 
vincial synod should decide those ecclesiastical questions which 
are in dispute. This same apostolical canon orders very ex 
plicitly that two provincial synods shall be held every year, 
but it does not appoint the same seasons as the canon of the 
Council of Nicaea. It might be supposed at first sight, that 
according to the ordinance of Mcsea, a provincial synod is 
only required to make inquiries about the force of sentences 
of excommunication which have been passed ; but it may be 
seen that the (Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople 
has correctly explained this canon, 1 in saying that it entrusts 
the provincial Council with the care of examining into the 
whole affairs of the province. 



388 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Gelasius has given, in his history of the Council of Niccea, 
the text of the canons passed by the Council ; and it must be 
noticed that there is here a slight difference between his text 
and ours. Our reading is as follows : " The excommunication 
continues to be in force until it seem good to the assembly of 
bishops (TW KOLVW) to soften it." Gelasius, on the other hand, 
writes : pe^pis cuv TO> KOIVU> TJ TO> eTrtovcoTrw, /c.r.X., 1 that is to 
say, " until it seem good to the assembly of bishops, or to the 
bishop (who has passed the sentence)," etc. . . . Dionysius the 
Less has also followed this variation, as his translation of the 
canon shows. 2 It does not change the essential meaning of 
the passage ; for it may be well understood that the bishop 
who has passed the sentence of excommunication has also the 
right to mitigate it. But the variation adopted by the Prisca 9 
alters, on the contrary, the whole sense of the canon : the 
Prisca has not ro3 KOIVW, but only eiTLo-KOTrco : it is in this 
erroneous form that the canon has passed into the Corpus juris 
can* The latter part of the canon, which treats of provincial 
councils, has been inserted by Gratian. 5 

CAN. 6. 

Ta ap^ala %6r) KpareLTO) TO, eV Aljvirra) KOI AijBvrj KOI 
, a crre TOP A\e%av$pela<> eiricrKOTrov Trdvrwv rovrcov 
rr)V e^ovcriav, eire&r] KOI TW Iv rfj Poopy eTricncoTTU) TOVTO 

eCTTW OfJLOLWS $ KOI KCLTO, AvT LO^eidV KOI lv 



ra TredBela aweaOai rat? eKKXrcriais Ka0o- 



\ov 3e TrpoS rjX.ov etceivo, ore el TLS %w/o/ ? 7^/^979 TOV 

\ITOV ryevoiTO eTTiWoTTO?, TOP TOIOVTOV r} fjie<yd\7j crwoSo? copicre 

fir} Seiv elvcii eTrtcrKOTrop eav /mevrot, rf) Koivfj irawrwv 

euXo<yft> ovarj /cal Kara KOVOVO, KK\r]a-ia<TTiKov, Svo TJ 

BL olfcelav (friXoveiKLav avriheywcri,, /cpareirco fj 



1 Mansi, ii. 894. 2 Mansi, ii. 679. 3 Mansi, vi. 1127. 

4 C. 73, causa xi. qusest. 3. 5 C. 3, Distinct, xviii. 

The first part of this canon, written in Coptic, is found with a Latin trans 
lation in Pitra s Spicileg. Solesmense, i. 528. The Monitum (p. 512), and the 
note 7 of p. 536, show that Pitra attaches great importance to the Coptic text ; 
"but that is because this text supports the theories of the author. For ourselves, 
we are unable to see how they are supported by this more than by the Greek 
text. 






NIC7EA : CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 389 

" The old customs in use in Egypt, in Libya, and in Pen 
tapolis, shall continue to exist, that is, that the bishop of 
Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these (provinces) ; 
for there is a similar relation for the Bishop of Borne. The 
rights which they formerly possessed must also be preserved 
to the Churches of Antioch and to the other eparchies (pro 
vinces). This is thoroughly plain, that if any one has become 
a bishop without the approval of the metropolitan, the great 
Synod commands him not to remain a bishop. But when the 
election has been made by all with discrimination, and in a 
manner conformable to the rules of the Church, if two or 
three oppose from pure love of contradiction, the vote of the 
majority shall prevail." 

I. The fourth and fifth canons had determined the rights 
of provincial councils and of ordinary metropolitans ; the sixth 
canon 1 is taken up with the recognition and regulation of 
an institution of a higher order of the hierarchy. It is most 
clear from the words of the canon, that the Synod had no 
intention of introducing anything new. It desires that the 
ancient tradition should be preserved, by which the Bishop of 
Alexandria had jurisdiction over Egypt (in the narrower sense 
of the word), Libya, and Pentapolis. 

It is very evident that it is an exceptional position that had 
been already given to the Bishop of Alexandria, which is recog 
nised and ratified by the Council. The Bishop of Alexandria 
had not alone under his jurisdiction one civil province, like 
the other metropolitans, of whom the fourth canon has already 
treated : he had several provinces depending upon him, Egypt 
(properly so called), and to the west two other provinces, Libya 
(Libya sicca vel inferior ) and Pentapolis, or Cyrenia (situated 
to the west of Libya, which separates it from Egypt properly 
so called). There is, of necessity, attached to these provinces 
the Thebais, or Upper Egypt, which at the time of the Council 
of Nicsea was certainly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
Alexandria. Our canon does not specially name it, because it 

1 Phillips has ^iven, in his Kirclienrecht (Canon Law), Bd. ii. S. 35, a list of 
the works written on this sixth canon of ISiicsea : they are very numerous. 
That of Dr. Fr. Maassen may be also added, which we have already called atten 
tion to. 



390 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

includes it in Egypt, whose limits are not, as may be seen, 
very exactly determined by the Fathers of Mcsea. 1 The four 
provinces here named formed, at the time of the Synod, the 
diocese (political division) of Egypt, or Egypt taken in its 
largest signification ; some time after the diocese was divided 
into six provinces Pentapolis (Libya superior}, Libya inferior, 
Thebais, Egypt, Augustamnica (the eastern part of Egypt), and 
Arcadia or Eptanomis (Middle Egypt). 

These explanations prove that the sense of the first words 
of the canon is as follows : " This ancient right is assigned to 
the Bishop of Alexandria, which places under his jurisdiction 
the whole diocese of Egypt." It is without any reason, then, 
that the Erench Protestant Salmasius (Saumaise), the Anglican 
Beveridge, and the Gallican Launoy, try to show that the 
Council of Mcaea granted to the Bishop of Alexandria only 
the rights of ordinary metropolitans. 2 

But since it is evident that an exceptional position is ap 
pointed for him, we must now ask in what this position con 
sisted. Two cases here present themselves : 

a. The four civil provinces, Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis, and 
Thebais, might be united into a single ecclesiastical province, 
of which the Bishop of Alexandria would be declared the sole 
metropolitan. This supposition has been adopted by Van 
Espen. 3 

b. Or else each one of these civil provinces might form 
an ecclesiastical province, and have its metropolitan, whilst 
the Archbishop of Alexandria (who was metropolitan of the 
province of Egypt, taken in its narrower signification) had a 
certain ecclesiastical supremacy over the civil diocese, so that 
the other metropolitans (that is to say, those of Pentapolis, of 
Thebais, and of Libya) would be under his jurisdiction. At 

1 See the dissertation in the essay by Maassen, already quoted, on das poli- 
tisch-geographiscke Verhaltniss von JEgypten, Libyen und Pentapolis zur Zeit 
des Contils von Niccia, S. 30-39. 

2 See, on this question, the dissertation of Dupin, sixth canon concil. Nicami, 
etc. , in his work de antiqua Eccles m disciplina, p. 65, ed. Mog. 

3 Gommentar. in Canones, etc., Colon. 1755, p. 91 sq., in his Scholia to the 
sixth canon of the Council of ISTicsea. This theory of Van Espen s, which we 
shall expose further on, has been also adopted by Wiltsch in his Kirchl. Geo 
graphic und Statistik, Bd. i. S. 180. 



NKLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 391 

the time of the Council of Mcaea there was no particular 
title to describe the chief metropolitan, who was usually called 
at a later period Patriarch or Exarch. 1 

It seems to me beyond a doubt, that in this canon there is 
a question about that which was afterwards called the patri 
archate of the Bishop of Alexandria ; that is to say, that he 
had a certain recognised ecclesiastical authority, not only over 
several civil provinces, but also over several ecclesiastical pro 
vinces (which had their own metropolitan) : it is in this sense 
that Valesius 2 in earlier times, and in our days Phillips and 
Maassen, have interpreted the sixth canon of Nicaea. The 
reasons for this explanation are : 

(a.) The general rule, confirmed by the fourth canon of 
the Council of Mcsea, 3 determined that each civil province 
should be an ecclesiastical province as well, and that it should 
have its metropolitan. Now nothing proves that Libya, Pen- 
tapolis, and Thebai s were an exception to this general rule, 
and had no metropolitans of their own. 

According to S. Epiphanius, 4 Meletius was ap^ieTrlcr- 
of the province of Thebais ; and according to the same 
author/ he had the first place 6 after the Archbishop of Alex 
andria, over all the bishops of Egypt. Although the title of 
apxieTrlo-KOTros was not in use in the time of Meletius, Epi- 
phanius does not hesitate to make use of it in accordance 
with the usage of his own time, and to show by it that he 
considers Meletius as the metropolitan of the Thebais ; 7 but 
as, in his account of the history of the Meletian schism, S. 

1 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, Bd. ii. S. 37, says : Leo the Great was for the first 
time saluted with the title of Patriarch at the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 ; 
but the second (Ecumenical Council, held in 381, had already used this word as 
a personal title of honour, and as one that could be given to other bishops. 
Cf. Neander, KircJieng. 2te Aufl. Bd. iii. S. 333 ; Dupin, de antiqua Ecdesice 
disciplina, Mogunt. 1788, p. 7 sqq. 

2 Observation.es ecclesiasticce in Socratem et Sozomenum, lib. iii. c. 1. These 
observations have been printed after the Annotationes on the Historia Eccle- 
aiastica of Sozomen, p. 188 sqq. of the ed. of Mainz. 

3 See, further back, the explanation of the fourth canon of Nicsea. 

4 Epiph. Hares. 69, c. 3, p. 729, ed. Petav. 

5 Epiph. Hceres. 68, c. 1, p. 717. 

6 This must only be understood in an indeterminate sense. 

7 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 21, note 12 a. 



392 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Epiphanius has made serious mistakes, we do not, as we have 
shown elsewhere, 1 attach much importance to his testimony. 

(7.) "We find a letter of Synesius to Theophilus Archbishop 
of Alexandria/ in which he says, " that S. Athanasius having 
discovered in Siderius, formerly Bishop of Palsebisca and 
Hydrax, a capacity for higher functions, had translated him 
to Ptolemais* in Pentapolis, to govern the metropolitan church 
there." As this Synesius was Bishop of Ptolemais at the 
beginning of the fifth century, his assertion, which bears wit 
ness to the fact that this city was at the time of S. Athana 
sius, and consequently at the time of the Council of Nicsea, an 
ecclesiastical metropolis, is of the greatest value. 3 

(S.) Other passages of this letter of Synesius, in particular 
the following passage, show that Ptolemais was in reality for 
merly an ecclesiastical metropolis : " He was reproached with 
not having sufficiently guarded the maternal rights of his city 
(TO, /jLrjrpwa -n}? TroXeta? Slicaia), that is to say, the rights of 
his metropolitan church, against the Bishop of Alexandria." 

(e) Synesius acted also repeatedly as metropolitan of Penta 
polis. He brought together the other bishops of the province, 
and gave his consent to the choice of a new bishop; thus 
making use of a right that the fourth canon of ISTicsea accorded 
to a metropolitan. 5 

(f.) Finally, we may appeal to the Emperor Theodosius n., 
who, in a letter dated March 30, 449, gave orders to Dios- 
curus Bishop of Alexandria to present himself at Ephesus for 
the great Synod 6 (that which was known later as the Latro- 
cinium Eplusinum), with the ten metropolitans who belonged 
to his diocese. 7 

It is, then, incontestable that the civil provinces of Egypt, 
Libya, Pentapolis, and Thebais, which were all in subjection 
to the Bishop of Alexandria, were also ecclesiastical provinces 
with their own metropolitans ; and consequently it is not 

1 See the dissertation of Dr. Hefele on the Meletian schism, in the Kirchen- 
lex. von Wetzer und Welte, Bd. vii. S. 39, and above, sec. 40. 

2 Ep. 67. 3 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 20 ff. * Maassen, I.e. S. 22, note 15. 
6 Maassen, I.e. S. 26-28. 

6 The number of ecclesiastical provinces in Egypt was then ten. Cf. "VViltsch, 
5.c. S. 188, 189. 

7 Hard. ii. 71 ; Mansi, vi. 588. 






NIGZEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 393 

the culinary rights of metropolitans that the sixth canon of 
ISTicasa confirms to the Bishop of Alexandria, but the rights of 
a superior metropolitan, that is, of a patriarch. We are able 
to define in what these rights consisted : 

a. The Bishop of Alexandria ordained not only the metro 
politans who were subject to him, but also their suffragans ; 
while the ordinary rule was, that the suffragans should be 
ordained by their own metropolitans. 1 

1}. But the Bishop of Alexandria could only (as patriarch) 
ordain those whose election had the consent of the immediate 
metropolitan, that is, of the metropolitan in whose province he 
found himself. The letter of Synesius again proves this, in 
which he requests Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria 2 to conse 
crate the new Bishop of Olbia in Pentapolis. After making the 
request, Synesius adds this phrase : " I moreover give my vote 
for this man" ($>epw /caya* TIJV ejj,avTov ^n]^>ov eirl rov dvSpa). 3 

Finally, we shall see a little further on that this sixth 
canon also decreed measures to prevent the rights of simple 
metropolitans being completely absorbed in the privileges of 
the patriarchs. 

II. The sixth canon of ISTicaea acknowledged for the Bishop 
of Antioch the rights which it had acknowledged for the 
Bishop of Alexandria; that is, as it would be expressed at 
a later period, the rights attached to a patriarchate. The 
second canon of the Council of Constantinople, held in 381, 
proves that the patriarchate of the Bishop of Antioch was 
identical with the civil diocese of Oriens. This diocese of 
Oriens contained, according to the Notitia, dignitatum, fifteen 
civil provinces : Palsestina, Fcenice, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus, 
Arabia, Isauria Palsestina salutaris, Palsestina (ii.), Fcenice 
Lybani, Eufratensis, Syria salutaris, Osrhoena, Cilicia (ii.). 4 

Whatever might be the number of civil provinces that the 
diocese of Oriens contained at the time of the Council of 
Mcsea, it is not less certain that, in the canon before us, a 
supremacy was acknowledged for the Bishop of Antioch, ex 
tending to several provinces which had their own metropolitans. 
Tims, for example, Palestine acknowledged as its metropolitan 

1 Maassen, I.e. S. 24. 2 Eplst. 76. 3 Of. Maassen, I.e. S. 26. 

4 Booking, Notil. dign. t. i. in part, orient, p. 9 ; Maassen, I. c. S. 41. 



394 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the Bishop of Cassarea, as we shall see in the seventh canon 
of the Council of Nicaea ; but the metropolitan of Cassarea, in 
his turn, was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, as 
his superior metropolitan (patriarch). S. Jerome says expressly 
that these rights of the Church of Antioch proceeded from the 
sixth canon of Niceea, " in which it was ruled that Antioch 
should be the general metropolis of all Oriens, and Ctesarea 
the particular metropolis of the province of Palestine (which 
belonged to Oriens)." 1 Pope Innocent I. wrote to Alexander 
Bishop of Antioch : " The Council of Mcsea has not established 
the Church of Antioch over a province, but over a diocese. As, 
then, in virtue of his exclusive authority, the Bishop of Antioch 
ordains metropolitans, it is not allowed that other bishops 
should hold ordinations without his knowledge and consent." 2 
These passages show us in what the rights of the metro 
politan of Antioch consisted: (a) He ordained the metro 
politans immediately : (/3) The other bishops, on the contrary, 
were ordained by their metropolitan, yet by his permission ; 
whilst, as we have seen further back, the patriarchs of Alex 
andria ordained immediately the suffragan bishops also. 

III. For the support of its rule, the Council of JSTicsea points 
out that the Bishop of Eome has also rights analogous to those 
which it acknowledges for the Bishop of Alexandria (and for 
the Bishop of Antioch). It is evident that the Council has 
not in view here the primacy of the Bishop of Eome over the 
whole Church, but simply his power as a patriarch ; for only 
in relation to this could any analogy be established between 
Eome and Alexandria or Antioch. This subject will be con 
sidered more in detail further on. 

IV. After having confirmed the claim of the three great 
metropolitan cities of Eome, Alexandria, and Antioch to 
patriarchal rights, our canon adds : " The rights (TrpeajBela) of 
the Churches in the other eparchies must also be preserved." 
The question is, What is here understood by the words, " the 
Churches of the other eparchies ? " Salmasius and others 
think that the question in point here is about ordinary eccie- 

1 Hieron. Ep. 61 ad Pammacli. : Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palcestince 
metropolis Ccesarea sit, et totius Orientis Antiochia. Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 44. 

2 Innocent i. Ep. 18 ad Alex. Antioch. Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 45. 



NIOffiA : CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 395 

siastical provinces and their metropolitan cities ; but Valesius, 1 
Dupin, 2 Maassen, 3 and others have maintained that this pas 
sage relates to the three superior eparchies (sensu eminenti) of 
Pontus, proconsular Asia, and Thrace, which possessed similar 
rights to those of the patriarchal Churches of Eome, Alex 
andria, and Antioch, and which later were usually called 
exarchates. The metropolitan cities of these three eparchies, 
sensio eminenti, were Ephesus for proconsular Asia, Csesarea in 
Cappadocia for Pontus, and Heraclea (afterwards Constanti 
nople) for Thrace. The Council of Constantinople, held in 
381, speaks 4 of these three exceptional metropolitan cities; 
and for my own part, I see no difficulty in believing that the 
Council of Nicsea also speaks of them in this sentence : " The 
rights of the Churches must also be preserved in the other 
eparchies;" for (a) our canon does not speak of ordinary 
eparchies (that is to say, of simple metropolitan cities), but of 
those which have particular rights (7rpecr/3eta). 

(/3.) The word d^oiW shows that the Synod places these 
eparchies in the same rank as the sees of Alexandria and 
Antioch. 

(y.) It is very true that the sixth canon does not deter 
mine these other eparchies sensu eminenti; but as the second 
canon of the Council of Constantinople (381) groups these 
three sees of the eparchies of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace just 
in the same way as the Council of Mcsea had grouped the 
Churches of Eome, Antioch, and Alexandria, there can be no 
doubt that the Council of Nicsea had also in view these three 
eparchies sensu eminenti. 

(S.) This passage, taken from a letter of Theodoret to Pope 
Flavian, may also be quoted : 5 " The Fathers of Constantinople 
had (by this second canon) followed the example of the 
Fathers of the Council of Nicsea, and separated the dioceses 
the one from the other." It follows from this, according to 
Theodoret, that the Synod of Nicaea had acknowledged as 
ecclesiastical provinces, distinct and governed by a superior 
metropolitan, the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace (as it had 
done with regard to the dioceses of Eome, Alexandria, and 
Antioch) ; for, as the Council of Constantinople desired to 

1 I.e. 2 I.e. p. 68. 3 I.e. S. 57 f. 4 Can. 2. 5 Epistola 86. 



396 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

separate the dioceses the one from the other, it is evidently 
necessary that the limits of these dioceses should be known, 
and that the three patriarchates of Borne, Alexandria, and 
Antioch should not be the only ones distinct. 1 

V. The sixth canon proceeds : " It is plain enough, that if 
any one has become a bishop without the approval of the 
metropolitan, the great Synod (of Mcsea) does not allow him 
to remain bishop." By metropolitan, Valesius understands 
patriarch, and explains the passage in this manner : " With 
out the consent of the patriarch, a bishop should never be 
instituted." Dupin 2 and Maassen 3 think, on the contrary, that 
the question is here that of an ordinary metropolitan, and 
explain the sentence in this manner : " In those ecclesiastical 
provinces which form part of a patriarchate, care must be taken 
to preserve the rights of the simple metropolitan, and for that 
reason no person can be made a bishop without the consent 
of his immediate metropolitan ; that is to say, the patriarch 
himself cannot ordain any one without the consent of the 
metropolitan of the future bishop." 

This explanation shows why the Synod of Mcsea repeats 
in its sixth canon this sentence already inserted in the fourth : 
" No one can be made a bishop without the consent of his 
metropolitan." 

VI. According to what has been said, the end of the sixth 
canon, " When, from a mere spirit of contradiction, two or 
three oppose an election which has been made by all, and 
which is at the same time reasonable and in accordance with 
the rules of the Church, the majority must prevail," should 
be explained in this manner : " When any one has been 
elected bishop by the majority of the clergy and of the bishops 
of the province, and with the consent of the metropolitan and 
of the patriarch, then," etc. 

VII. This sixth canon was possibly the result of the 
Meletian schism ; for, as it is a fact that these schismatics 
slighted the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria, this confu 
sion probably decided the Synod of Nicsea to define clearly 
the rights of that bishop. 

VIII. It may now be seen how clear and intelligible the 

1 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 54 f. 2 I.e. p. 68. 3 I.e. S. 62. 



NICLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 397 

sense of this sixth canon is, and yet it has been the object 
of the most wide-spread controversies. 

1. The first question is, What is the value of the canon 
before us with respect to the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy ? 
And while some have desired to see in it a confirmation of the 
doctrine of the Eoman primacy, others have adduced it as a 
weapon against the primacy of the Holy See. 1 Phillips re 
marks with justice, in speaking of this canon : " It is evident 
that this canon cannot be used to demonstrate the primacy 
of the Pope ; for the Council of Nicsea did not speak of the 
primacy, which had no need of being established or confirmed 
by the Council of Mcsea." 2 

It must not be forgotten that the Pope unites in him 
self several ecclesiastical dignities : he is bishop, metropolitan, 
patriarch, and lastly, primate of the whole Church. Each 
one of these dignities may be regarded separately, and that 
is what the canon has done : it does not consider the Pope 
as primate of the universal Church, nor as simple Bishop of 
Eome ; but it treats him as one of the great metropolitans, 
who had not merely one province, but several, under their 
jurisdiction. 

2. There has also been a question as to what extent was 
given to this metropolitan diocese of Eome by the Council of 
Mcsea ; but the very text of the canon shows that the Council 
of Mcosa decided nothing on this point : it is content to 
ratify and confirm the order of existing things. There has 
been a great conflict of opinions to explain in what this order 
of things consisted. The translation of this canon by Eufinus 
has been especially an apple of discord. 3 Et ut apud Alex- 
andriam et in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille 
dEgypti vel hie suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem 
gcrat? In the seventeenth century this sentence of Eufinus 
gave rise to a very lively discussion between the celebrated 

1 Franc. Ant. Zaccaria has proved that this canon contains nothing contrary 
to the primacy of the Holy See. Cf. Diss. de rebus ad histor. atque antlquitat. 
Ecclesice pertlnentibus, t. i. No. 6, Fulig. 1781. There appeared at Leipzig in 
the Litt. Ztcj. 1783, No. 34, a violent criticism on the work of Zaccaria. 

2 Kirchenrecht, I.e. S. 36. 

3 Rufinus has, besides, divided this canon into two parts. 

4 Kufini Hist. Eccl. i. (x.) 6. 



398 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

jurist Jacob Gothfried (Gothofredus) and his friend Salmasius 
on one side, and the Jesuit Sirmond on the other. The great 
prefecture of Italy, which contained about a third of the 
whole Eoman Empire, was divided into four vicariates, among 
which the vicariate of Eome was the first. At its head were 
two officers, the prcefectus urbi and the vicarius urbis. The 
prcefectus urbi exercised authority over the city of Eome, and 
further in a suburban circle as far as the hundredth milestone. 
The boundary of the vicarius urbis comprised ten provinces 
Campania, Tuscia with Ombria, Picenum, Valeria, Samnium, 
Apulia with Calabria, Lucania, and Brutii, Sicily, Sardinia 
and Corsica. Gothfried and Salmasius maintained, that by 
the regiones siiburbicarice the little territory of the prcefectus 
urbi must be understood ; whilst, according to Sirmond, these 
words designate the whole territory of the vicarius urbis. In 
our time Dr. Maassen has proved l in his book, already quoted 
several times, that Gothfried and Salmasius were right in 
maintaining that, by the regiones suburbicarice, the little terri 
tory of the prwfectus urbi must be alone understood. But, on 
the other hand, according to Maassen, it is a complete mis 
take to suppose the patriarchal power of the Bishop of Eome 
restricted to this little territory. 

The sixth canon of Mcsea proves that it was not so ; for, 
on comparing the situation of the two Churches of Alexandria 
and of Eome, it evidently supposes that the patriarchate of 
Eome extended over several provinces. In fact, the ten 
provinces composing the territory of the vicarius urbis, and 
which were hundreds of times larger than the regio suburbi- 
caria, did not contain all the territory over which the autho 
rity of the Pope as patriarch extended ; for, in our days, 
Phillips has proved, by reference to the work of Benetti (Pri- 
vilegia S. Petri)? that the Bishop of Eome had the right of 
ordaining bishops, and consequently the rights of a patriarch, 
over other countries than those which are contained in the 
ten provinces of the vicarius urtis? If the question is put 
in this way, it must be said, either that Eufinus does not 

1 lc. s. 100-110. 2 Yol. iv. p. 115. 

3 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, lc. S. 41. Cf. Walter. Kirclienreclit, lite Aufl. S. 
290, note 4. 



I 

NIC7EA : CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 399 






identify the ecclesice suburbicarice with the regiones siiburbi- 
wrice, or that he is mistaken if he has done so. Phillips 
thinks that Eufinus has not really fallen into this error. 
Having remarked that the provincice suburbicarice (that is to 
say, the ten provinces enumerated ahove) took their name 
from the vicarius urbis, he considered that the ecclesice suburbi- 
caricv also took theirs from the episcopus urbis ; and he has 
comprised under this name of ecclesice suburbicarice all the 
churches which form part of the Eoman patriarchate. 

For my part, I willingly believe that the expression of 
Bufinus is inaccurate ; for the Prisca (an old Latin translation 
of the canons) translates the passage of our canon in question 
as follows : Antiqui moris est, ut urli-i JKomce episcopus liabcat 
principatum, ut suburbicaria loca ET OMNEM PROVINCIAM SUAM 
sollicitudine giibernct ; l (ci) understanding by suburbicaria, loca 
the little territory of the prcefectus urbi, but (&) not restricting 
the authority of the Pope as patriarch within the limits of this 
territory ; and therefore it adds, et omnem provinciam suam. 

But what was in fact the extent of this patriarchate of the 
Church of Ptome ? 

The Greek commentators Zonaras and Balsamon (of the 
twelfth century) say very explicitly, in their explanation of 
the canons of Nicaea, that this sixth canon confirms the rights 
of the Bishop of Borne as patriarch over the whole West. 
We see, then, that even the Greek schismatics of former times 
admitted that the Eoman patriarchate embraced the entire 
West, 2 as the following testimonies and considerations prove : 

a. Mention is made a hundred times by the ancients, of 
the patriarchates into which the Churches of the East were 
divided (Alexandria, Antioch, etc.) ; but no one has ever 
hinted at the existence of a second patriarchate of the West. 
On the contrary, it may be seen that in all the West there 
was only one patriarchate. 

b. S. Augustine shows that the Bishop of Eome was looked 
upon as this Patriarch of all the West, for he gives to Pope 
Innocent i. the title of " President of the Church of the West." 3 

1 Mansi, vi. 1127. 

2 In Beveridge, Synodkon sen Pandectce Ganonum, i. 66, 67. 

3 Contra Julianum, lib. i. c. 6. . 



400 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

c. S. Jerome gives the same testimony. He writes to the 
presbyter Mark, " that he was accused of heresy on account 
of his clinging to the liomoousios, and that this charge hac 
been carried to the West and into Egypt ; that is to say, tc 
Damasus Bishop of Eome, and to Peter (Bishop of Alexan 
dria)." It may be seen that, as the Bishop of Alexandria is 
here regarded as Patriarch of Egypt, so the Bishop of Rome 
is considered the Patriarch of the West. 1 

d. The Synod of Aries, held in 314, speaks in the same 
way. In a letter to Pope Sylvester, it says to him : Qui 
majores diceceses tenes? It considers, then, that the Bishop of 
Eome has under his jurisdiction several (civil) dioceses, while 
the other patriarchs had, as we have seen, only one. 

e. We may finally appeal to the authority of the Emperor 
Justinian, who in his 119th Novel, speaking of the ecclesi 
astical division of the whole world, numbers five patriarch 
ates : those of Eome, of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of 
Antioch, and of Jerusalem. Now, as these four last patri 
archates contain only the Church of the East, it is evident 
that the patriarchate of Rome contains in itself alone all the 

West. 3 : ;: 

The Roman patriarchate contained, then, eight dioceses, 
which at the beginning of the sixth century were divided 
into sixty-eight provinces ; * and although, at the accession 
of Theodosius the Great that is to say, in 378 Eastern 
Illyricum ceased to form part of the Empire of the West, 
and was joined to that of the East, yet the provinces of this 
prefecture continued to be joined to Eome for ecclesiastical 
purposes, and a special papal vicar was charged with the 

1 Hieron. Ep. 15 (al. 77), ad Marcum presb. Cf. Maassen, S. 117. 

2 Hard. i. 262. 

3 Cf. Maassen, l.c. S. 113 f.; and Wiltsch, Kirchl. Statist^, Bd. i. S. 67. 

4 They were 1st, The prefecture of Italy, with the three dioceses of Italy, 
Illyricum, and Africa ; 2d, The prcefectura Galliarum, with the dioceses of 
Hispanice, Septem provindce (that is to say, Gaul, properly so called, with 
Belgia, Germania, prima et secunda, etc.), and Britannia; Bd, The prefecture 
of Illyricum, which became part of the empire of the East after the accession of 
Theodosius the Great (it is necessary to distinguish this prefecture of Illyricum 
from the province of Illyria, which formed part of the prefecture of Italy), with 
the provinces of Macedonia and Dacia. Cf. Notitia dignit. ed. Booking, t. ii. 
p. 9 sqq., p. 13 sqq., and t. i. p. 13 sq.j and Maassen, l.c. S. 125. 



NIC^EA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 401 

ecclesiastical government of these dioceses. The first of these 
vicars was Bishop Ascholius of Thessalonica, appointed by Pope 
Damasus. 1 

It must not, lastly, be overlooked that the Bishop of Eome 
did not exercise in an equal degree, over the whole West, 
the full rights of patriarch ; for in several provinces simple 
bishops were ordained without his consent. On the other 
hand, the Pope exercised his patriarchal right in convoking 
at different renewals the general and private synods of the 
Western Church (synodos occidentales) for example, the Synod 
of Aries in 314 and in making himself the judge .of the 
metropolitans of the West, either directly or indirectly, as in 
Illyricum by his vicar. 2 

In some ancient Latin translations, this canon begins with 
the words, Ecclesia Romano, semper hdbuit primatum ; B and 
this variation is also found in the Prisca. So the Emperor 
Valentinian in., in his edict of 445 on the subject of Hilary 
of Aries, issued also in the name of his Eastern colleague 
Theodosius IL, maintained that the holy Synod had confirmed 
the primacy of the Apostolic See. 4 The Emperor Valentinian 
evidently makes allusion to the sixth canon of Mcaea ; for at 
that time the second canon of the Council of Constantinople, 
held in 381, which speaks in the same sense, was not yet 
known at Eome. 5 

It must be added that, at the time of the sixteenth session 
of the fourth (Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, the Koman 
legate Paschasinus read the sixth canon of Mcsea in the fol 
lowing manner : Quod Ecclesia Eomana semper haliuit prima 
tum ; teneat autem et ^gyptus, ut episcopus Alexandria? omnium 
Jiabeat potestatem, quoniam et Romano episcopo licec est consuetudo. 

The actual text of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon 
proves that the translation given by Paschasinus was placed 
over against the Greek text of the sixth canon of Mcsea. An 
attempt has been made to see in this juxtaposition a protest 

1 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 126-129. 

2 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 121-125, and S. 131. 

3 Hard. i. 325 ; Mansi, ii. 687 ; Yan Espen, Commentar. in cannnes, etc., p. 93. 

4 Printed in the edition of the Works of S. Leo the Great, published by the 
Ballerini, i. 642. It is the eleventh letter in this edition. 

5 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 71, and 96 f. 

2 C 



402 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

of the Synod against the Eoman translation ; but even if it 
is admitted that the portion of the acts which gives these 
two texts is perfectly authentic, it is very evident that the 
legate Paschasinus had no intention, in quoting the sixth 
canon of Mcaea, to demonstrate the primacy of the Holy See : 
he only desires to prove that the Bishop of Constantinople 
ought not to take precedence of those of Antioch and Alex 
andria, because that would be a violation of the canon of 
Mcsea. It was not the words of the translation of Paschasinus 
with reference to the see of Eome which engaged the atten 
tion of the Council ; it was those which referred to the sees 
of Antioch and Alexandria, and those were very faithfully 
translated from the Greek. On the other hand, the Ballerini 
have shown in a nearly conclusive way, in their edition of 
the Works of JS. Leo the Great, 1 that the acts of Chalcedon. 
have been interpolated, that the Greek text of the sixth 
canon of ISTicsea must have been introduced by some later 
copyist, and that the text of Paschasinus was the only one 
which was read in the Synod. We shall return to this ques 
tion in the history of the Council of Chalcedon. 

It seems to us that Dr. Maassen goes too far, when he says 2 
that the Council of Chalcedon expressly confirmed the Koman 
interpretation of the sixth canon of Mcsea, and consequently 
its recognition of the Eoman primacy. It is true that, after 
the reading of the Latin version of the canon in question, 
followed by the reading of the first, second, and third canons 
of Constantinople (of 381 8 ), the imperial commissioners who 
were present at the Synod made this declaration : " After what 
has been cited on both sides, we acknowledge that the most 
ancient right of all (irpb Trdvrwv ra Trpcoreia), and the pre 
eminence (KOI T7)v egalperov Tifirjv), belong to the Archbishop 
of old Eome ; 4 but that the same pre-eminence of honour (TO, 
7rpecr/3ela -rifc Ttyiw}?) ought to be given to the Archbishop of 
new Eome." Maassen has considered that, after these words of 
the imperial commissioners, it may be concluded that the sixth 

1 T. iii. p. xxxvii. sq. 2 I.e. S. 90-95. 

* Hard. ii. 638. These canons were read by the consistorial secretary Con- 
stantine. 

4 Hard. ii. C42. 



CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 403 

canon of the Council of Mcsea had already recognised, in fact, 
the right of the Pope to take precedence of all other bishops ; 
but it was not so. The commissioners said : On both sides, 
that is to say, in what the papal legate has read, and in what 
has been read by the consistorial secretary Constantine as 
well, the precedence of Borne is recognised. This is the same 
as saying: This precedence, which we do not in the least -con 
test (there is no question, in fact, of that), is set forth (a) in 
the Latin version of the sixth canon of Nicsea, read by Pas- 
chasinus, and is contained (&) in the canons of Constantinople 
read by Constantine. But the imperial commissioners of the 
Synod go no further in their declarations ; and in particular, 
they have not declared that the original text of the sixth 
canon of Mcsea a text which had not been read contains 
affirmatively a recognition or a confirmation of the primacy 
of the Pope. 

But it will be said, How could the ancient translators of 
these canons, as well as the legates of the Pope and Emperors, 
suppose that the sixth canon of Mcsea included a confirmation 
of the primacy of Eome ? In answer to this question, Dr. 
Maassen has put forward a theory, which we produce simply 
as a theory : " The Fathers (of Mcaea) confirmed the rights of 
each see (of Alexandria, of Antioch, etc.). Why did they 
take as an example in their decree the constitution of the 
Eoman patriarchate ? Why were they not content simply 
to give their sanction to those patriarchal rights without ad 
ducing this analogy? We cannot imagine a more striking 
proof of the deep respect that the Fathers of Mccea had for 
the visible head of the Church ; for no one will suppose that 
the simple confirmation by the Council of the rights of superior 

metropolitans would not be perfectly sufficient But 

that which was sufficient for mere law did not satisfy the 
Fathers of Nicsea : their own sentiments on the utility of the 
institution of patriarchates did not appear sufficient to in 
fluence their decree : they did not wish to present to the 
approbation of the Pope those decrees simply confirming the 
privileges of superior metropolitans. They preferred to refer 
to the fact that the Bishop of Eome already enjoyed the 
same position: it was to show that at Eome an institution 



404 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

existed analogous to that which they wished to confirm. In 
reserving to himself a certain number of provinces which he 
might deal with in a peculiar manner, did not the Pope most 
clearly recognise it as necessary that the same should be the 
case with other Churches ; and that a portion of the power 
which belonged exclusively to him in his position as chief 
pastor of the universal Church, should be committed to other 
bishops ? The Bishop of Rome was then, strictly speaking, 
the founder of the institution of patriarchates (that is to say, 
he gave to certain patriarchs a portion of that power over the 
universal Church which belonged to him). He had himself 
given the type, that is, the motive, upon which the Fathers 
of NicaBa founded their canon. Can we wonder, then, that 
the most remote antiquity found in this canon, to use the 
expression of Pope Gelasius I., 1 c an unique and irrefragable 
testimony in support of the primacy ? J: 

The sixth canon of Nicsea has been inserted in the Corpus 
juris canonici, but there it has been divided into three smaller 
canons. 2 

: CAN. "7. , | ;.. 

^Eirei^rj (Tvvr)6eia Kefcpdr^Ke teal TrapaSocris ap^ala, axrre rov 

777 yu-ryrpOTToXet crw^ofjiivov rov oliteiov 

" As custom and ancient tradition show that the Bishop of 
Mlm ought to be honoured (in a special manner), he shall 
have precedence ; without prejudice, however, to the dignity 
which belongs to the metropolis." 

Short as this canon is, its explanation presents great diffi 
culties. One thing is certain : it is, that the Council desires 
to confirm an ancient right of the Bishop of ^Elia, that is 
to say, of Jerusalem, to enjoy certain honours ; but in what 
they consisted, and what must be understood by the words 
dfcoXovOta TT}? T/Z%, we cannot easily determine. 

If the city of Jerusalem had not been taken and destroyed 
by Titus, August 31st, in the seventieth year after Christ, 
it would certainly have had, in the organization and economy 
of the Church, a very distinguished place as the ancient 

1 Hard. ii. 919 ; Maassen, S. 140 f. 

2 C. 6, Dist. Ixv. ; c. 8, Dist. Ixiv. ; and c. 1, Dist. Ixv. 



NIC.-EA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 405 

Mother- Church of Christendom; but of old Jerusalem there 
remained only three towers and a portion of the city wall : 
all the rest was levelled with the ground, and the plough had 
passed over the ruins. 

A short time after the year 70, certain Jewish and Chris 
tian colonists settled in the midst of these ruins, and built 
huts there, and even a little Christian church in the place, 
in which the first believers were in the habit of meeting after 
the ascension of Christ to celebrate the eucharistic feast. 1 A 
short time after the commencement of the second century, 
the Emperor Hadrian had a new city built upon the ruins of 
Jerusalem, with a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus. He also 
gave the new city the name of ^Elia Capitolina, in remem 
brance of this temple and of his own family. He peopled it 
with fresh colonists, after the entire exclusion of the Jews. 

We find in this new city a large community of Christians, 
converts from heathenism, who had at their head the Bishop 
Marcus ; 2 but for two hundred years the name of Jerusalem 
appears no more in history. 3 .The new city was treated as 
though it had nothing in common with the old ; there was 
even considerable difficulty in knowing and distinguishing the 
differences which existed between the one and the other. 4 Thus 
it happened that the city of Hadrian had not the ecclesiastical 
rank which belonged by right to old Jerusalem. After Jeru 
salem had been destroyed by Titus, Csesarea (Turns Stratonis), 
which had formerly been only the second city in the country, 
became the civil and ecclesiastical metropolis, and the Bishop 
of Mli& was only a simple suffragan of the metropolitan of 
Csesarea. But it might be foreseen that the reverence of all 
Christians for the holy places, sanctified by the life, sufferings, 
and death of our Lord, would contribute little by little to raise 
the importance of the old city, and consequently that of its 
Church and bishop ; and thus it came to pass that the metro 
politan of Csesarea was gradually equalled, if not surpassed, by 

1 Epipli. de mensuris et ponderibus, c. 14, t. ii. p. 170, ed. Petav. 

2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 6. 

3 It is only after the Council of Nicsea that the name of Jerusalem reappears, 
Eusebius, foi* instance, always uses it. 

4 Bcveridge, I.e. p. 63. 



406 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 



the dignity of the Holy City /car efo^, without, however, 
the subordinate ecclesiastiaal position of the latter being altered. 
Towards the end of the second century the gradation was 
already so sensible, that at a Synod of Palestine the Bishop 
of JElia occupied the presidency conjointly with the metro 
politan of Csesarea (secundo loco, it is true) ; as Eusebius, who 
was himself afterwards metropolitan of Csesarea, plainly tells 
us in the fifth book and twenty-third chapter of his History: 
" At a Synod held on the subject of the Easter controversy 
in the time of Pope Victor, Theophilus of Csesarea and Nar 
cissus of Jerusalem were presidents." The same Eusebius 
shows us, in his fifth book and twenty-fifth chapter, how- 
near in honour the Bishops of Jerusalem and Csesarea were 
to each .other; for, when writing a list of the bishops, he 
places Narcissus of Jerusalem before the metropolitan Theo 
philus of Csesarea. It is true that in the twenty-second 
chapter he does the contrary. The synodal letter of the 
bishops assembled at Antioch in 269 on the subject of the 
errors of Paul of Samosata is very remarkable on this point. 
It is signed first by Helenus Bishop of Tarsus, immediately 
afterwards by Hymenseus Bishop of Jerusalem, whilst Theo- 
tecnus Bishop of Csesarea signs only quarto loco?- It must 
not, however, be hastily concluded from this that the Bishop 
of Jerusalem had already at this time priority of the metro 
politan of Caesarea ; but it cannot be doubted that the entirely 
exceptional position in which he found himself would of 
necessity raise difficulties between himself and his metropo 
litan. It is this which probably induced the Synod of Nicsea, 
to pass its seventh canon. The eminent De Marca, as well 
as other historians, have supposed that by this canon the 
Synod wished to grant the first place to the Bishop of Jeru 
salem, immediately after the three great Patriarchs of Rome, 
Alexandria, and Antioch, without altogether raising him to 
the rank of Patriarch, and leaving him subject to the juris 
diction of the metropolitan of Csesarea. Marca explains in 
this way the words e ^ero) TTJV aKo\ov6i,av r^? TI/JLT]? : 1. He 
should have the honour (respedu honoris) of following im 
mediately after the metropolitans of Eome, Alexandria, and 

1 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii. 30. Cf. c. 22. See further back, sec. 9. 



: CONTEXTS OF THE CAXONC. 407 

Antiocli ; 2. The last words of the canon signify that the 
dignity which belongs to the metropolitan must not, however, 
be infringed. 1 Marca appeals in support of his theory to 
an old translation by Dionysius the Less, and to another 
yet older translation which was composed for the Synod of 
Carthage held in 419. But not one of these, translations 
supports Marca, for not one of them gives any explanation 
of the words a/co\ov9la T>)? rifjajs? Beveridge has especially 
taken it upon himself to refute Marca. A patriarch placed 
under the jurisdiction of a metropolitan is, according to him, 
an impossibility. He considers that, by the words e^erco TTJV 
aKo\ov6iav t the Council of Nicaea has simply desired to con 
firm to the Bishop of Jerusalem the first place after the 
metropolitan of Coesarea, just as in the Anglican hierarchy the 
Bishop of London comes immediately after the Archbishop 
of Canterbury. Beveridge remarks on this, that it may be 
answered, that in this same Synod of Nicaea, where the 
bishops signed by provinces, Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem 
nevertheless signed before Eusebius the metropolitan of 
Csesarea. Beveridge acknowledges the accuracy of this reply ; 
but he adds that two other bishops of Palestine also signed 
before Eusebius, and yet no one will maintain that they were 
not under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of CaBsarea. 
The signatures at the Council of Mcsea are not, then, con 
clusive. It might be added that, in these same signatures 
of the Council, the metropolitan of the province of Isauria 
is found signing in the fifth place, that is to say, after four 
of his suffragans ; and even the metropolitan of Ephesus did 
not sign first among the bishops of Asia Minor (although. 
Ephesus was one of the largest metropolitan cities of the 
Church) : his name conies after that of the Bishop of 
Cyzicus. 

A more remarkable incident is, that almost immediately 
after the Council of Mcsea, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus, 
convoked, without any reference to the Bishop of Csesarea, a 
Synod of Palestine, which pronounced in favour of S. Atha- 
nasius, and proceeded further to the consecration of bishops. 

1 Marca, de Concordia sacerdotii et imperil, lib. v. c. 12, n. 4. 
8 See Mtmsi, vi. 1128, and iv. 411 j Hard. i. 1246. 



408 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Socrates, who records this fact, adds, it is true, that he was 
reprimanded for having so acted. 1 But this fact shows that 
the Bishop of Jerusalem was endeavouring to make himself 
independent of the Bishop of Csesarea. It may also be seen 
by the signatures of the second (Ecumenical Synod, that Cyril 
Bishop of Jerusalem wrote his name before that of Thalassius 
Bishop of Csesarea. And, on the other side, it is not less certain 
that in 395 John metropolitan of Csesarea nominated Por- 
phyrius, a priest of Jerusalem, Bishop of Gaza ; and that the 
Synod of Diospolis, held in 415, was presided over by Eulo- 
gius metropolitan of Csesarea, although John Bishop of Jeru 
salem was present at the Synod. These different researches 
show us that the question of precedence between the Bishops 
of Csesarea and Jerusalem cannot be determined ; for sometimes 
it is the Bishop of Csesarea who is first, sometimes the Bishop 
of Jerusalem. This state of things lasted on to the time of the 
third (Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. Juvenal 
Bishop of Jerusalem took a very prominent place, and signed 
immediately after Cyril of Alexandria (it is true the Bishop 
of Csesarea in Palestine was not present). But this same Cyril 
was at this Synod a declared opponent of Juvenal ; and when 
the latter wished by the help of false documents to have his 
ecclesiastical primacy over Palestine acknowledged by the 
Council, Cyril appealed on the subject to the authority of the 
Roman See. 2 This same Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem had 
attempted, after a long contest wilh Maximus Bishop of 
Antioch, to make himself a patriarch; and the Bishop of 
Antioch, weary of the controversy, determined that the three 
provinces of Palestine should be under the patriarchate of 
Jerusalem, whilst Phoenicia and Arabia should remain attached 
to the see of Antioch. The fourth (Ecumenical Council held 

1 Socrates, ii. 24. 

2 Pope Leo the Great wrote on this subject, in his sixty-second letter to Bishop 
Maximus of Antioch : Sicut etiam in Ephesina synodo, quce impium Nestorium 
cum dogmate suo perculit, Juvenalis episcopus ad obtinendum Palcestince provincice 
pr mdpatum credidit se posse sufficere, et insolentes ausus per commentitia scripta 
firmare. Quod sanctce memories Cyrillus Alexandrinus merito perhorrescens, 
scriptis suis mihi, quid prcedicta cupiditas ausa sit, indicavit et sollicita prece 
multum poposcit, ut nulla illicUis conatibus prceberetur assensio. BEVELIDGE, 
I.e. p. 64 b. 



NIOEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 409 

at Clmlcecloii ratified this division in its seventh session, with* 
out, as it appears, the least opposition being offered. 1 

The last words of the seventh canon, TI} /-M?Tpo7roXet, K.T.\., 
have also been explained in different ways. Most writers 
and we share their opinion think that these words desig 
nate the metropolis of Csesarea ; others have supposed that 
the question is about the metropolis of Antioch ; but Fuchs 2 
has supposed that the reference is wholly to Jerusalem. Ac 
cording to him, the Council simply wished to show the reason 
of the existence of certain honours granted to this Church, 
because this metropolis (as an original Church) had a special 
dignity. This last theory clearly cannot be sustained : if the 
canon had this meaning, it would certainly have had a very 
different form. This seventh canon has been inserted in the 
Corpus juris canonici. 3 

CAN. 8. 

Ilepl TWV ovofJLa^ovTWV fjc,ev eavTovs KaOapovs Trore, Trpocrep- 
yofJievwv Be rfj Ka6o\ucfj /cal aTroardXtKr} -EJ/c/cX^crta, eBo^e 
aryia, Kal fjbe<yd\r) crwo8&>, ware ^etpoOerovf^evov^ avTovs 
ev ray Kkrjpu* irpo iraVTWV Be TOVTO ojuuoKoyrjcrai, 
Trpocnj/cei, QTI <jvvQi]crovTai fcal dfiohovOijaovcri, 

teal dTrocrToXiKTjs EtCKXria-ias Boy/macn, TOVT e 
icotwoveut /cal TOLS ev Tea ^iwyfjiM irapaTreTrrco/cocrtv 
(j) u>v /cal ^poz/o? rera/CTttt, teal /catpo? wpLcrrac wcrrt, 
aKO\ov6elv ev iracri rot? Soy/jiacri, rrjs Ka0o\i?crjs jE/c/ 
evda fjiev ovv Trai^re?, elVe ev Ku>p,ai<$ } elre ev Tro\e(Jiv avrol JJLOVOI, 
evplcr/coiVTO %eipoTOvr)9evTe<>, 01 evpicr/cofjievoi ev T&> K\rjpa) ecrovrai, 
v TW avru) a^^ari el Se TOV rrjs KaOoXiKrjs ^Efc/c\ i rjcrla<; ITTL- 
(JKOTTOV TI irpecrfivTepov ovros Trpoo-ep^ovral Tives, 7rp6^r]\ov, &)? 
o fjiev eTTLCTKOTTos T^? S/c/cX^cr/a? e^et, TO d^lwfjia TOV 
6 Be ovofAa^ofMevos irapa TOLS \eyofjbevois KaOapols 

TOV Trpecrfivrepov TifJiJjv e%ei ir\r)v el fjirj apa SOKOLTJ TU> 
T>)5 TijJLYjs TOV QvbfJLCLTOS avTOV fJieTe^eiv el 8e TOVTO 
jar) dpecTKoi, emvorjcrei, TOTTOV rj ^wpeirLcrKOTrov TJ 7rpecr/3v- 
Tepov, VTrep TOV ev rw K\rjpw oXew? Sofceiv elvai, iva fj/q ev 
Suo eV/cr/coTTOt waiv. 

1 Hard. ii. 491. 

2 Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenversammhingen, Bd. i. S. 399. 

3 C. 7, Dist. Ixv. 



410 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

" With regard to those who call themselves Oathari, the 
holy and great Synod decides, that if they will enter the 
Catholic and Apostolic Church, they must submit to imposition 
of hands, and they may then remain among the clergy : they 
must, ahove all, promise in writing to conform to and follow 
the doctrines of the Catholic and Apostolic Church ; that is to 
say, they must communicate with those who have married a 
second time, and with those who have lapsed under persecu 
tion, but who have done penance for their faults. They must 
then follow in every respect the doctrines of the Catholic 
Church. Consequently, when in villages or in cities there are 
found only clergy of their own sect, the oldest of these clerics 
shall remain among the clergy, and in their position ; but if 
a Catholic priest or bishop be found among them, it is evident 
that the bishop of the Catholic Church should preserve the 
episcopal dignity, whilst any one who has received the title of 
bishop from the so-called Cathari would only have a right to 
the honours accorded to priests, unless the bishop thinks it 
right to let him enjoy the honour of the (episcopal) title. If 
he does not desire to do so, let him give him the place of 
rural bishop (chorepiscopus) or priest, in order that he may 
appear to be altogether a part of the clergy, and that there 
may not be two bishops in one city." 

The Cathari who are here under discussion are no other 
than the Novations (and not the Montanists, as is maintained 
in the Gottinger gdehrten Anzeigen, 1780, St. 105), who from 
a spirit of severity wished to exclude for ever from the Church 
those who had shown weakness during -persecution. They 
arose at the time of the Decian persecution, towards the 
middle of the third century, and had for their founder the 
Roman priest Novatian, who accused his Bishop Cecilian of 
showing too much lenity towards the lapsi. These schismatics 
were called Novatians from the name of their leader ; but 
from a spirit of pride they gave themselves the name of 
Cathari (Puritans), /car ef o^i/, because their communion alone 
was in their eyes the pure bride of Christ, whilst the Catholic 
Church had been contaminated by the readmission of the 
lapsi. Their fundamental principle of the perpetual exclusion 
of the lapsi was in a manner the concrete form of the general 



CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 411 

principle, "brought forward two generations before, that whoever 
after baptism once fell into mortal sin, should never be re 
ceived back into the Church. The Catholic Church was her 
self in those times very much inclined to severity : she granted 
permission to perform penance only once; 1 whoever fell a 
second time was for ever excluded. But the Montanists and 
Novatians exceeded this severity, and professed the most 
merciless rigour. A portion of the Novatians those of 
Phrygia 2 followed the Montanists in a second kind of 
rigourism, in declaring that any one of the faithful who 
married again after the death of his consort committed adul 
tery. What we have said shows that the Novatians were in 
truth schismatics, but not heretics ; and this explains the mild 
manner in which the Council of Mcsea treated the Kovatian 
priests (for it is of them only that this canon speaks). 3 The 
Council treats them as it had treated the Meletians. 4 It de 
cides, in fact, 1st, coo-re xeipoOerov/jievovs, K.T.\. } that is to say, 
"they must receive imposition of hands." The meaning of 
these words has been a matter of dispute. Dionysius the Less 
translates them in this way : ut impositionem manus accipi- 
entes, sic in clero permaneant. 5 The Prisca 6 gives a similar 
translation ; and then it may be said that the eighth canon, 
according to the two authors, would be entirely in accordance 
with the decision given by the Council of Mcsea on the sub 
ject of the Meletians. That decision ordered that the Meletian 
clergy should not indeed be ordained anew by a Catholic 
bishop, but that they ought nevertheless to receive from him 
imposition of hands. 7 They were treated as those who had 
received baptism at the hands of heretics. Beveridge 8 and 
Van Espen 9 have explained this canon in another manner, 
resting upon Rufimis/ and the two Greek commentators of the 
middle a;es, Zonaras and Balsamon. According to them, the 

o o 

does not signify the imposition of hands 



1 The Pastor Hermce, lib. ii. Mand. iv. c. 1, says : Servis enim Dei pceni- 
tentia una est. 

2 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. v. 22. 

3 Cf. Mattes, die Ketzertaufe, in the Tubinger. tlieolog. Quartalschr. 1849, 
S. 578. 

4 See ahove, sec. 40. 5 In Mansi, ii. 680. 6 In Mausi, vi. 1128. 

7 See above, sec. 40. 8 I.e. p. 67. 9 Commentarius in canones, p. 94, 



412 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

which was to be received on their returning to the Catholic 
Church : it simply refers to the priesthood received in the 
community of the Novatians ; and consequently the sense of 
the canon of the Council of Nicsea is as follows : " Whoever 
has been ordained when amongst the Novatians, must remain 
among the clergy." It seems to me that the Greek text is 
more favourable to the first opinion than to the second, as the 
article is wanting before %eipo6eTov/jievov<;, and avrovs is added ; 
but this first opinion itself supposes that the reference is to 
those who were already clerics when they were in Novatian- 
ism, so that the meaning and fundamental idea is nearly the 
same in the one interpretation as in the other : for even sup 
posing that Beveridge and Van Espen are in the right, it does 
not follow that the Novatian clerics were admitted among the 

o 

orthodox clergy without any condition, particularly without 
some imposition of hands ; on the contrary, it is clear that 
they were not treated with more consideration than the 
Meletian clergy. Gratian appears to us to be in opposition 
to what our text tells us, and to the practice of the ancient 
Church, as well as to the analogy of the case of the ISTovatians 
with that of the Meletians, in supposing that the eighth canon 
of Mcsea prescribes a re-ordination. 1 

The Synod decided, besides, that the Novatians who came 
over should promise in writing a full submission to the doc 
trines of the Catholic Church. By these doctrines the canon 
does not seem to mean the doctrines of the faith in the special 
sense of the words : it seems rather to have reference to the 
admission of the lapsi, and those who contracted second mar 
riages. To quiet the Novatians on the subject of the lapsi, 
care is taken to add that they must have submitted to a pre 
scribed penance ; that is to say, that the lapsi should, before 
being readmitted into the Church, undergo a long and severe 
penance. 

After having established these two rules of discipline, the 
Synod adds the general condition, that Nbvatians (that is to 
say, the Novatian clergy) who desire restoration to the Church 
shall submit in general to all the doctrines of the Catholic 
Church. 

1 Gratian, Corp. juris canonlcl, cap. 8, causa i. qusest. 7. 



NIC7EA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 413 

The Council adds also the following directions : 

(a.) If in any city or village there exist only Nbvatian 
clergy, they are to retain their offices ; so that, for example, 
the JSTovatian bishop of an entirely Novation district may 
remain as a regular "bishop when he re-enters the Catholic 
Church. 

(/?.) But if there be found somewhere (perhaps it is neces 
sary to read el Be irov instead of el Se TOV) a Catholic bishop 
or priest along with JSTovatians, the Catholic bishop is to pre 
serve his office ; and the Novatian bishop must take the posi 
tion of a simple priest, unless the Catholic bishop thinks it 
well to allow him the honour of the episcopal title (but with 
out any jurisdiction). The Council does not say what is to 
be done with the Novatian priests ; but we may infer that, in 
places which possess but one priest, the cure should return to 
a Catholic priest, and the ISTovatian priest should retain only 
the title. The Synod did not provide for the case of a con 
flict between several priests, but the rules made on the subject 
of the Meletians enable us to supply this omission. Converts 
are allowed to remain in the office and rank of the priesthood, 
but they are to take their place after the other priests, and 
they are to be excluded from elections. 

(7.) Lastly, in a case where a Catholic bishop would not 
leave the ISTovatian bishop the continuance of the episcopal 
title, he should give him the post of a chorepiscopus * or priest, 
and this that the Novatian might continue to be visibly one 
of the clergy, and yet there might not be two bishops in the 
same city. 2 

This mildness of the Synod of Mcsea in the case of the 
Novatians had no more effect in extinguishing this schism 
than in the case of the Meletians ; for Novatianism continued 
until the fifth century. 

Amongst the ISTovatian bishops who took part in the Synod, 
we must especially mention Acesius, bishop of this sect at 
Constantinople, whom the Emperor Constantine held in great 
esteem on account of the austerity of his life, and had in co<!- 

1 See the art. Chorblschof in the Kirclienlexicon of "Wetzer and Yfelte, Bd. ii. 
S. 495 f. 
a S. Augustine makes allusion to this rule in his Epist. 213. See above, sec. 41. 



414 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

sequence invited him to the Synod. 1 Constantine asked him 
if he were willing to subscribe the Creed and the rule on the 
feast of Easter. " Yes/ replied Acesius, " for there is here, 
O Emperor, nothing new introduced by the Council ; for it has 
been so believed since the time of the apostles, and thus has 
Easter been kept." And when the Emperor further asked, 
"Why, then, do you separate from the communion of the 
Church ? " Acesius replied by quoting different acts which 
had been passed under the Emperor Decius, and by declaring 
that no one who had committed mortal sin should be ad 
mitted again to the holy mysteries. He might be exhorted 
to repentance, but the priest had not the right to pronounce 
him really absolved, but the penitent must look for pardon 
from God alone. Upon this the Emperor replied, " Acesius, 
take a ladder, and climb up to heaven alone." 2 Sozomen has 
suggested 3 that Acesius was of very great use to his party, 
and it is generally believed that this canon was made so mild 
towards the Novatians out of respect for him. 4 

CAN. 9. . 

E" TIVG.S dve^erdcTTCOS Trpocrrj^Brjcrav Trpecrfivrepoi,, rj ava/cpt- 
vojjievoi to/AoXoyrjaav TCL rjfJLaprrnjieva aurot?, teal 
CIVTWV, Trapa Kavova /avovpevot, av0pa)7roi rot? TOtovroi? 
iTriTedei/cacri TOUTOU? o KCLVWV ov Trpoo-lerat, TO yap dveiri- 
\rj7Trov efcBifcel 77 Kado\ircr) .E/e/eX^cr/a. 

" If any persons have been admitted to the priesthood 
without inquiry, or if upon inquiry they have confessed their 
crimes, and the imposition of hands has nevertheless been 
conferred upon them in opposition to the canon, such ordina 
tion is declared invalid ; for the Catholic Church requires men 
who are blameless." 

The crimes in question are those which were a bar to the 
priesthood, such as blasphemy, (successive) bigamy, heresy, 
idolatry, magic, etc., as the Arabic paraphrase of Joseph ex 
plains. 5 It is clear that these faults are punishable in the 

1 Sozom. Hist. Ecd. ii. 32 ; Socrat. Hist. Ecd. i. 10. 

2 Socrat. I.e. i. 10 ; Sozom. I.e. i. 22. 3 Sozom. ii. 32. 
4 Cf. Tillemont, Memoir es, etc., t. vi. article 17, p. 289, ed. Brux. 1732. 
* In Beveridge, I.e. p. 70. 



NICLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 415 

bishop no less than in the priest, and that consequently OUT 
canon refers to the bishops as well as to the irpecr^vrepoi in 
the more restricted sense. These words of the Greek text, " In 
the case in which any one might be induced, in opposition to 
the canon, to ordain such persons," allude to the ninth canon 
of the Synod of ISTeocaesarea. It was necessary to pass such 
ordinances ; for even in the fifth century, as the twenty-second 
letter of Pope Innocent the First testifies, some held that as 
baptism effaces all former sins, so it takes away all the im 
pedimenta ordinationis which are the result of those sins. 1 
The ninth canon of Mcsea occurs twice in the Corpus juris 



canonici. 2 



The following canon has a considerable resemblance to the 
one which we have just considered. 

CAN. 10. 

"Ocrot TTpoe^eLpiaOrjcrav rwv TrapaTreTrrcoKOTcov Kara a^voiav, 
q KOI Trpoei^orwv TWV TrpoxeipiaafAevwv, TOVTO ov TrpoKpivei, TOJ 
KavovL TO) eKK\rjcnacmKU) <yva)cr6evTes yap KaOaipovvrai. 

<: The lapsi who have been ordained in ignorance of their 
fall, or in spite of the knowledge which the ordainer had of 
it, are no exception to the canon of the Church, for they are 
to be deposed as soon as their unworthiness is known." 

The tenth canon differs from the ninth, inasmuch as it 
concerns only the lapsi and their elevation, not only to the 
priesthood, but to any other ecclesiastical preferment as well, 
and requires their deposition. The punishment of a bishop 
who should consciously perform such an ordination is not 
mentioned ; but it is incontestable that the lapsi could not be 
ordained, even after having performed penance : for, as the 
preceding canon states, the Church requires those who were 
faultless. It is to be observed that the word Trpo^etpl^eiv is 
evidently employed here in the sense of " ordain," and is used 
without any distinction from ^eipi^iv ; whilst in the synodal 
letter of the Council of Nicsea on the subject of the Mele- 
tians, there is a distinction between these two words, and 
is used to signify eligere. 3 



1 Cf. Beveridge, I.e. p. 70. 2 C. 4, Dist. 81, arid c. 7, Dist. 24. 

3 Socrat. I.e. i. 9. 



416 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

This canon is found several times in the Corpus juris 
canonici. 1 

CAN. 11. 

Tlepl TWV irapa/BavTUiV 



TJ TWO? TOIOVTOV, O <y<yOVei> 67Tfc 



7779 Tvpavviftos AiKiviov eBo^e rfj crvvoSw, KCLV avafyoi rjaav 
<pi\av0pct)7rlas, 0/^0)9 Xpijtrreva CUTOtu els avrovs ocrot, ovv 



rpla TTJ ev an poco fjievois iroirjcrova-iv 01 mcrroi, /cal 
err} viroirecrovvTac Svo Se 



rwv 

"As to those who lapsed during the tyranny of Licinius, 
without "being driven to it by necessity, or by the confiscation 
of their goods, or by any danger whatever, the Synod decides 
that they ought to be treated with gentleness, although in 
truth they have shown themselves unworthy of it. Those 
among them who are truly penitent, and who before their fall 
were believers, must do penance for three years among the 
audienteSj and seven years among the substrati. For two years 
following they can take part with the people at divine service, 
but without themselves participating in the oblation." 

The persecution of Licinius had come to an end only a 
few years before the meeting of the Council of Nicsea, and 
at the downfall of that Emperor. The cruelty with which 
they were persecuted led a large number into apostasy. Thus 
the Council had to take notice in several of its canons of the 
lapsi ; and as there were different classes to be made among 
these lapsi that is to say, as some among them had yielded 
at the first threat, whilst others had undergone long tortures 
before their fall the Synod wished to take account of the 
extenuating as well as of the aggravating circumstances, and to 
proportion the punishment to the degree of the fault. This 
canon does not say how the least guilty are to be treated ; but 
it decides that those who are the most guilty, and the least 
excusable, should pass three years in the second degree of 
penitence, seven years in the third, and two years in the fourth 
or lowest class. 2 

The canon supposes that those who are to receive this treat- 

1 C. 5, Dist. 81 ; c. 60, Dist. 50. 

2 See the fifth canon of the Synod of Ancyra, sec. 16 



A: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 417 

meiit were before tlieir fall fiddcs, i.e. members of the Church, 
and not simple catechumens. We shall see in the fourteenth 
canon what the Synod decides with respect to catechumens 
who showed themselves weak 1 

CAN. 12. 

Ol Se 7rpoaK\7]6ei>T6<; pev VTTO r?}? %dpiro<;, Kal TTJV TrpGOTrjv 
opfjtrjv evSeitfd/uevoi,, Kal cunoQk^voi ras favas, pera Be Tavra eVt 
TOV oiKelov efierov dvaSpapovTes o>? Kvves, 0)9 Twas Kal dpyvpia 
TrpoecrOai, Kal fievecfriKiot,? KaropOcocrai, TO av 
OVTOI, oeKa errf vTroTrtTrrercocrap pera TOV TT}? TpieTOvs 

. eft ajraai Se TOVTOIS Trpoa^Ket, e^erd^eiv TTJV Trpoaipecrw, 
l TO el^o? T?}? /uerapoto?. oaoi fjuev <yap Kal <^o/5fo Kal bditpWTt 
V7ro}j.ovf) Kal aryadoepyuus TTJV eTno Tpo^rji epjM Kal ov 
7ri$el/cwifTCU f OVTOI, TrXripwcravTes TOV %povov TOV 
wpio-fievov TTJS aKpodcrecos, CLKOTO)? TCOV efyibv KOivcovtfa-ovcn, 
TOV e^elvai T& eVtavcoTrw, Kal <j)L\av6pW7TOTepov TL Trepl 
j3ov\evcrao-6ai,. ouoi Be dBia<p6pa)s ijveyKav, Kal TO 
TOV [^] eiaiewu els Trjv EKKkycriav dpKelv avTols 
TTjOo? T7]v eTTHTTpo^rjv, e^aTTavTO? irKrjpovTwcrav TOV %p6vov. 

" Those who, called by grace, have shown the first zeal ; and 
have laid aside their belts, but afterwards have returned like 
dogs to their vomit, and have gone so far as to give money 
and presents to be readmitted into military service, shall 
remain three years among the audientes, and ten years among 
the substrati. But in the case of these penitents, their intention 
and the character of their repentance must be tried. In fact, 
those among them who, by fear and with tears, together with 
patience and good works, show by deeds that their conversion 
is real, and not merely in appearance, after having finished the 
time of their penance among the audientcs, may perhaps take 
part among those who pray ; and it is in the power of the 
bishop to treat them with yet greater lenity. As to those who 
bear with indifference (their exclusion from the Church), and 
who think that this exclusion is sufficient to expiate their 
faults, they must perform the whole period prescribed by the 
law." 

1 On the penitential system of the primitive Church, see Beveridge, I.e. p. 71 
. ; and Binterim, Denkicurdiykeiten, Bd. v. Thl. ii. S. 362 ff. 

2 D 



418 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

In his last contests with Constantino, Licinius had made 
himself the representative of heathenism; so that the final 
issue of the war would not be the mere triumph of one of the 
two competitors, but the triumph or fall of Christianity or 
heathenism. 1 Accordingly, a Christian who had in this war 
supported the cause of Licinius and of heathenism might be 
considered as a lapsus, even if he did not formally fall away. 
With much more reason might those Christians be treated as 
lapsi, who, having conscientiously given up military service 
(this is meant by the soldier s belt), afterwards retracted their 
resolution, and went so far as to give money and presents for 
the sake of readmission, on account of the numerous advan 
tages which military service then afforded. It must not be 
forgotten that Licinius, as Zonaras and Eusebius relate, 2 re 
quired from his soldiers a formal apostasy ; compelled them, 
for example, to take part in the heathen sacrifices which were 
held in the camps, and dismissed from his service those who 
would not apostatize. It must not be supposed, then, that 
the Council forbade military service generally, as the writer 
has shown in the Tubinger Thcol. Quartalschrift for 1841 
(S. 386). But equally untenable is the opinion of Aubespine. 3 
He supposes that the canon speaks of those who promised to 
perform a lifelong penance, and to retain the accustomed 
penitential dress, but who afterwards broke their vow, and 
took part in secular matters, and tried to make their way to 
posts of honour. The cingulum which the canon mentions is 
evidently the cingulum militias. It is in this sense too that 
Pope Innocent the First has used it in his letter to Victricius 
of Eouen. He says to that bishop, making, it is true, a mis 
take upon another point : Constitute Niccena synodus, si g_uis 
post remissionem pcccatorum cingulum militice secularis habuerit, 
ad clericatum admitti omnino non debet* 

The Council punishes with three years in the second degree 
of penance, and with ten years in the third, those of the faith 
ful who had taken the side of Licinius in his struggle against 
Christianity. It was, however, lawful for the bishop to pro 
mote the better disposed penitents of the second rank (a/cp6~ 

1 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. x. 8. 2 In Beveridge, I.e. i. 73, and Euseb. x. 8. 

3 In Van Espen, I.e. p. 97. 4 Cf. Fuclis, I.e. S. 404. 



NICLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 419 

to the fourth, in which they could be present at the 
whole of divine service (ev-^rj). It is not stated how long 
they should remain in this fourth rank ; but from what the 
eleventh canon says, it may be supposed that they remained 
in it two years. As to those who underwent their penance 
with more indifference, and who were content to pray outside 
the Church, without taking any active part in divine service, 
they were required to fulfil the whole time of their penance. 
It is by considering the negation fir) which comes before 
elcrievai as an interpolation, as Gelasius of Cyzicus, the Prisca, 
Dionysius the Less, the pseudo-Isidore, 1 Zonaras, 2 and others 
have done, that the interpretation given above may be obtained. 
When inserting this canon in the de, Poenitentiaf Gratian gives 
it the same meaning that we do. If it is desired at any 
cost to retain the negation, the last clause will be explained 
as follows : " They consider it as sufficient obedience to the 
Church not to go beyond what is allowed to them as penitents, 
and not to attend without permission the missa fidelium" 

CAN. 13. 

Ilepl Se TWV et;o$evovT(DV o Trakaios /cal KCIVOVIKOS vofio^ 
KCU, vvv, wcrre, el Tt? e^oSevoi, TOV TeXevTaiov /cal 
6<fx)&U)V firj aTCOcrTepela Oai el Be a7ro<yvcocr0el<; 
/cal Koivtovias 7ra\iv TV / ^a)v ) iraKw eV rot? co<Jii/ e^eracrdfj, 
KOIVWVOVVTWV TT}? 6UY^9 [Jiovrjs earco Ka06\ov &e KOL 



ovTivocrovv eoeuozrro?, arovvros TOV 
, o e7rlcrK07ro<; fjiera So/ct/^acjta? eVtSoTto. 

" With respect to the dying, the old rule of the Church 
shall continue to be observed, which forbids that any one who 
is on the point of death should be deprived of the last and 
most necessary viaticum. If he does not die after having 
been absolved and admitted to communion, he must be placed 
amongst those who take part only in prayer. The bishop 
shall, however, administer the Eucharist, after necessary 
inquiry, to any one who on his deathbed asks to receive it." 

The Synod of Nicsea provides for the case of a lapsus being 
in danger of death before he has fulfilled the period of his 

1 Mansi, ii. 681, 690, 899, vi. 1129. 2 In Beveriflge, I.e. i. 73. 

3 C. 4, Dist. 5. 



420 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

penance, and decides that, in conformity with the old custom 
and with old rules for example, the sixth canon of the Council 
of Ancyra the holy Eucharist (l<j)6Siov) should be admini 
stered to the dying person, although he has not fulfilled all 
his penance. 1 Van Espen 2 and Tillemont 3 have proved, 
against Aubespine, that the word l$o$iov here signifies the 
communion, and not merely absolution without communion. 
The opinion of those two authors is also that of the two old 
Greek commentators Zonaras and Balsamon, and of the Ara 
bian paraphrast Joseph. If the sick person should recover 
his health, he should take his place in the highest rank of 
penitents. The Council does not state the period he should 
pass in it, but it is clear, and the ancient collector of canons, 
John of Antioch, adds, " that such an one should remain in 
that class the whole time of penance prescribed in canons 
11 or 12." 4 

The Synod ends this canon more generally. In the begin 
ning it treats only of the lapsi, but at the end it considers all 
those who are excommunicated, and orders that the bishop, 
after having made personal inquiry into the state of matters, 
may administer the communion to every man on his deathbed, 
whatever his offence may have been. 

This thirteenth canon has been inserted in the Corpus 
juris can? 

CAN. 14. 

lie pi T&V KaT7]%ovfj(,evci)v Kal TrapaTrecrovTWV e Soffe rfj dyta 
KOI fAeyaXy (ruv6Bip, wcrre Tpi&v ercov avrovs aKpow^ivov^ 
JJLOVOV., fjiera ravra ev^eaOat pera TWV Karrj^ov/jiepo)^ 

" The holy and great Synod orders that catechumens who 
have lapsed be audientes for three years ; they can afterwards 
join in prayer with the catechumens." 

The catechumens are not, strictly speaking, members of the 
Church : their lapse, therefore, in time of persecution, may 
be considered as less serious than actual apostasy. But it was 
also natural to prolong their time of probation, when, aftei 
persecution, they asked again to be admitted among the cate- 

1 Cf. Beveridge, I.e. ii. 79. 2 Van Espen, Commentarius, I.e. p. 98. 

| Tillemont, I.e. p. 361. 4 Cf. Beveridge, I.e. ii. 80 b. 

5 C. 9, causa xxvi. q. 6. 



NICLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 421 

cliumens ; and it is this of which the fourteenth canon treats. 
These catechumens should, it says, remain three years among 
the audientcs, that is to say, among the catechumens, who only 
take part at the didactic part of worship, at sermons, and at 
reading. If they showed during this time of penance zeal 
and marks of improvement, they might be admitted to prayer 
with the catechumens ; that is to say, they might form part of 
the higher class of those who made up the catecJiumeni sensio 
strictiori. These could be present at the general prayers 
which were offered at the end of the sermon ; and they re 
ceived, but kneeling, the bishop s blessing. 

In the same way as Origen and several other writers, more 
especially several Greek historians of the Church, so the Coun 
cil of oSTicea speaks only, as we have seen, of two classes of 
catechumens. Some Latin writers, amongst whom Isidore of 
Seville may be quoted, speak only of these two grades of cate 
chumens j 1 and it may be said, without any doubt, that the 
primitive Church knew of no others. Bingham 2 and Neander 3 
have maintained, and the opinion is generally held, that in the 
fourth century there was formed a third class of catechumens, 
composed of those who should receive baptism immediately ; 
and also that the meaning of the ceremonies for the reception 
of this sacrament was explained to them. They were called 
<j)0)Tt$ijievo(, and compdmtes ; but we notice that S. Isidore 
makes competences synonymous with ^ovvKkivovres. Beveridge 
endeavours to prove that S. Ambrose also spoke of this third 
class of catechumens ; 4 but the words of this Father, Sequenti 
die erat dominica ; post lectioncs atque tractatum, dimissis cate- 
cJmmcnis, synibolum aliquibus competentibus in laptisteriis trade- 
lam basilicce, show us that by catechumenis he understands the 
first and second classes, and that the competentes belonged to 
the third class. 5 

The fourteenth canon of Nicsea has not been inserted in 
the Corpus juris canonici, probably because the old system of 
catechumens had ceased to exist at the time of Gratian. 

1 Orig. vii. c. 14. 2 Bingham, iv. 20. 

3 Meander, 2te Aufl. Ed. iii. S. 606. 

4 Beveridge, I.e. ii. 81. 

E Cf. Binterim, Dcnkwurdigkeiten, Bd. i. Till. i. S. 17. 



422 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

CAN. 15. 

A La TOV TTO\VV Tapa^ov /cal ra? crracrei? T#? yivo/JLeva? 
TcavTanracri TcepiaipeOrjvai rrjv awtfOeiav, TT\V Trapa TOV /cavova 
evpeOelaav ev TLCTL fiepecnv, ware CLTTO TroXeco? et? rroXiv f^rj 
p,eTa(Balveiv /JL^TC eTrlcr/coTrov yu-Tyre Trpeafivrepov yu^re Sidfcovov. 
el 8e Tt9 /Ltera TOV TT}? 17/0.9 /cal jj,e<yah.ris crvvoftov opov TOIOVTW 
Tivl eiTL^eipijcreiev, rj eViSow; eavTov Trpajf^aTi, TOIOVTW, afcvpw- 
Qj](jeTai e^aTravTos TO KaTacrKevacr^a, Kal a7rotcaTaa Ta0r)0 eTai, 
Trj eKKKriaLa, fj o eV/crA-oTro? rf 6 Trpecrfivrepos e^etpOTOv^drj. 

" On account of the numerous troubles and divisions which 
have taken place, it has been thought good that the custom 
which has been established in some countries in opposition to 
the canon should be abolished ; namely, that no bishop, priest, 
or deacon should remove from one city to another. If any 
one should venture, even after this ordinance of the holy and 
great Synod, to act contrary to this present rule, and should 
follow the old custom, the translation shall be null, and he shall 
return to the church to which he had been ordained bishop 
or priest." 

The translation of a bishop, priest, or deacon from one 
church to another, had already been forbidden in the primitive 
Church. 1 Nevertheless several translations had taken place, 
and even at the Council of Mcsea several eminent men were 
present who had left their first bishoprics to take others : thus 
Eusebius Bishop of Mcomedia had been before Bishop of 
Berytus ; Eustathius Bishop of Antioch had been before 
Bishop of Berrhoea in Syria. The Council of Mcsea thought it 
necessary to forbid in future these translations, and to declare 
them invalid. The chief reason of this prohibition was found 
in the irregularities and disputes occasioned by such change 
of sees ; but even if such practical difficulties had not arisen, 
the whole doctrinal idea, so to speak, of the relationship be 
tween a cleric and the church to which he had been ordained, 
namely, the contracting of a mystical marriage between them, 
would be opposed to any translation or change. 

In 341 the Synod of Antioch renewed, in its twenty-first 
canon, the prohibition passed by the Council of Mcaea ; but 
the interest of the Church often rendered it necessary to make 

1 See the Can. Almost. 13 and 14. 



NHLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 423 

exceptions, as happened in the case of S. Chrysostom. These 
exceptional cases increased almost immediately after the hold 
ing of the Council of Mcsea, so that in 382 S. Gregory of 
Nazianzus considered this law among those which had long 
been abrogated by custom. 1 It was more strictly observed in 
the Latin Church ; and even Gregory s contemporary, Pope 
Damasus, declared himself decidedly in favour of the rule of 
Nicaea. 2 It has been inserted in the Corpus juris canonici? 

CAN. 16. 

"OcrGi pttyotciv$vva)$ pyre rov (f>o/3oi> rov eov rrpo o(j)6d\,fJLcov 
eyovres, /Jirfre rov KK\rjcnacmfcov /cavova elSores, ava^wpijcrovcri, 
eKK\r)cria$, rrpecrfivrepoi, TI ^LCLKOVOI TJ 0X0)9 ev ra> KCLVQVL 
oi" ovroi OL Sa^w? Setcrol o^etXoucrii/ elvai ev erepa 
a, a\\a Trdcrav avrots avdyfcyv eTrdyeaOai, XJpiJ, ava- 
6/9 ra? eavrwv TrapoiKias, rj 



elvcu, TrpocrrjKei. el Se KCU roX/A^crete Ti? v(pap7rdcrai, rov TW erepw 
$iacj)epovTa, fcal %ipoTovij(rai, ev ry avrov e/CfcX^o-la, pi) crvy- 
KarariOefjievov TOV L&LOV ITTKTKOTTOV, ov ave^ opricrev o ev T&5 
fcavovt, e^era^oiAevos, a/cvpos carat, f] ^eiporovla. 

" Priests, deacons, and clerics in general, who have with 
levity, and without having the fear of God before their eyes, 
left their church in the face of the ecclesiastical laws, must 
not on any account be received into another : they must be 
compelled in all ways to return to their dioceses ; and if they 
refuse to do so, they must be excommunicated. If any one 
should dare to steal, as it were, a person who belongs to 
another (bishop), and to ordain him for his own church, with 
out the permission of the bishop from whom he was with 
drawn, the ordination shall be null." 

This sixteenth canon has a good deal of connection with 
the preceding. It contains two general principles : a. It 
threatens with excommunication all clerics, of whatever de 
gree, if they will not return to their first church ; 4 &. It forbids 
any bishop to ordain for his own diocese a person belonging 
to another diocese. It may be supposed that the Council of 

1 Cf. Neander, Kircliengeschiclde, 2te Aufl. Bd. iii. S. 317. 

2 Beveridge, I.e. ii. 81 ; Neander, I.e. 3 Cap. 19, causa vii. q. 1. 
4 According to Balsamon, exclusion from communio clericalis. 



424 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Kicsea lias here again in view the Meletian schism; but it 
must not "be forgotten that Meletius did not ordain strangers 
to his diocese, and retain them afterwards, but the reverse 
he ordained clergymen for other dioceses. 

We notice also, that in this canon the expression Iv 



KCLVOVI e^erafo/xei/o? occurs twice to designate a cleric ; it 
means literally, any one who "belongs to the service of the 
Church, who lives under its rule (KCLVWV), or whose name is 
inscribed in its list (/cavwv). 1 

Gratian has inserted this canon, and divided it into two. 2 

CAN. 17. . - 

rj TroXXot ev TCO KCLVOVL e^era^o/Aevoi rrjv ifXzove^iav /cat 
av 8tco/co^re9 eVeXaf/opTO rov Oetov ypd/Ajmaros 
* To apyvpiov avrov OVK eftcofcev eVl TOKO) teal Savel- 
eKaroaras artairovGiv i^iKaiwaev r) ayia teal 



<W9, eu Tt9 evpedetr) uera TQV opov TOVTOV TOKOVS 

fAeTa%eipicra)<; rj aXXa>9 /t*T^)YO/*W09 TO Trpayfia rj 
airaLTOW i} 0X0)9 erepov TL ITTLVOWV aurypoO /cepSou9 eveica, 
Ka6aipe6)]0 eTa(, TOV K\tfpov /cal aXXor/3i09 rov KOVOVO? co-rat,. 

" As many clerics, filled with avarice and with the spirit of 
usury, forget the sacred words, He that hath not given his 
money upon usury, 3 and demand usuriously (that is, every 
month) a rate of interest, the great and holy Synod declares 
that if any one, after the publication of this law, takes interest, 
no matter on what grounds, or carries on the business (of 
usurer), 110 matter in what way, or if he require half as much 
again, or if he give himself up to any other sort of scandalous 
gain, he shall be deposed from his clerical office, and his 
name struck off the list." 

Several of the oldest Fathers of the Church considered that 
the Old Testament forbade interest to be received : thus, in the 
fourth book of his controversial work against Marcion. Ter- 

O 

tullian wishes to prove to this Gnostic the harmony which 
exists between the Old and the New Testament, by taking as 

1 See, on this point, the dissertation of Dr. Mimchen on the first Synod ol 
Aries, in the Bonner Zeitschrift fur Philos. und katliol. Theol. Heft 26, S. 64. 

2 C. 23, causa vii. q. 1, and c. 3, Dist. 71. 

3 Ts. xv. [LXX. xiv.] 6. 



A: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 425 

an example the teaching given about a loan at interest. Ac 
cording to Ezekiel, 1 says Tertullian, he is declared just who 
does not lend his money upon usury, and who does not take 
what comes to him from it, that is to say, the interest. By 
these words of the prophet, God had prepared for the perfec 
tion of the New Testament. In the Old, men had been taught 
that they should not make gain by lending money, and in the 
New that they should even bear the loss of what they had lent. 2 
Clement of Alexandria expresses himself in the same way : 
" The law forbids to take usury from a brother, and not only 
from a brother by nature, but also from one who is of the 
same religion as ourselves, or who is one of the same nation 
as ourselves, and it looks upon lending money at interest as 
unjust: unfortunate persons should rather be assisted with 
open hand and open heart." 

In taking account of the prohibitions declared by the Jewish 
law against lending at interest, the customs of that time must 
have filled the Christian mind with horror of this quazstus. As 
in the Jewish language there is only one word to express 
usury and lending at interest, so with the Eomans the word 
fceims was also ominous in its double meaning. During the 
last period of the republic and under the emperors, the legal 
and mildest interest was twelve per cent., or, as the Eomans 
called it, interest by month, or usura centesima ; but some 
times it increased to twenty-four per cent., Una centcsimcc, 
and even to forty-eight per cent., quaternce centcsimce* Horace 
speaks even of a certain FufMius, who demanded sixty per 
cent. ; and what is remarkable is, that he speaks of this Fufi 
dius when on the subject of apothecaries. 5 As this exorbi 
tant interest was generally paid at the beginning of the month, 
the reason why Ovid speaks of the celeres, and Horace of the 
tristcs Kakndas, is explained. 6 

The early Christians knew this loan at interest but little ; 
they also kept themselves from it conscientiously, so long as 
that brotherly love prevailed from which had come a com 
munity of goods. But unhappily other Christians became apt 

1 xviii. 8. 2 Tertnll. adv. Marc. iv. 17. 3 Stromat. ii. 473, Pott. 

4 -Cicero, In Verr. iii. 70, Att. vi. 2. 5 I Satyr. 2. 1-14. 

6 Cf. Adam s Roman Antiquities, and Quartalschrift, 1811, S. 404. 



426 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

scholars of the heathen in this matter. It was most "blame 
worthy in the clergy, whose savings, according to canon law, 
"belonged to the poor and to the Church, and least of all 
ought to be abused to usurious gain through the oppression 
of the poor. Therefore the forty-fourth (or forty-third) apos 
tolical canon gave this order : " A bishop, priest, or deacon 
who receives interest for money lent, must cease from this 
traffic under pain of deposition ;" and the Council of Aries, 
held in 314, says in the twelfth canon: DC, ministris, qiii 
fcenerant, placuit, eos juxta formam divinitus datam a com- 
munione abstinere. The seventeenth canon of Mcsea also for 
bids all the clergy to lend money on interest ; we say to all the 
clergy, because in the preceding canon we have shown that by 
the "words ev T& Kavovt eferaJo/Aei/oi the clergy must be under 
stood. The Synod, fearing lest the clergy should in future 
practise usury in a hidden and underhand manner, was careful 
at the end of the canon to define the different sorts of usury 
which are forbidden. 1 

The seventeenth canon of Mceea is found twice in the Cor 
pus juris canonici. 2 

CAN. 18. . 

^HXOev 6t9 TTJV dytav KOI fjbeyaX.Tjv ffuvoSov, ori ev TICI TOTTOI? 
/cal TroXecrt rot? 7rpeo-(3vTepoi$ Trjv Ev^aptcrrlav ol Bid/covoi, 
S&oaaiv, oTrep ovre 6 KCLVOJV ovre -Y] avvrjOeia TrapeScotce, TOV? 
e^ovcriav I^TI e^ovra^ Trpocrcfiepeiv rot? Trpocr^epovcri, SiSovai TO 
aw/to, rov Xpicrrov. rca/celvo Se eyvtopLcrOr], OTI, ijSr) rtve? rcov 
SiaKovwv /cal Trpo TMV eTTicTKOTrcov TT}? Ev^apicrria^ aTTTOvrai. 
Tavra p^ev ovv cuTrcuvra TrepiyprjcrOa) teal efAfieveTcocrais ol Sid- 

KQVOl TOt? IStoiS [JLCTpOLS, 6tSoT65 QTL TOV fJLl> eTTiCTKOTTOV V 

eldi, TCOV e Trpecr^vrepwv eXarrou? Tvy^dvovcri 
e /cara TTJV rdt;tv TTJV Ev%apicrTiav fjuera 

T! TOV eTTLOTKOTTOV $l$OVTO$ dVTOLS Tj TOV TTpeafivTepOV. d\\a 

K.aQr\<jQai ev yu-ecrw TMV TrpecrjBvTepwv e^ecrra) rot? iaicbi>ois Trapa 
Kavova jap teal Trapa TCL^LV eaTi TO ^ivo^vov. El Be rt? 
6e\oi, TreiOapxelv /cal peTa TOVTOVS rou? opovs, Treir aver Out 



1 On the opinions of the old Fathers on the subject of loans at interest, see 
the author s dissertation in the Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 405 ff., and Beitruge i. 31. 

2 C. 2, Dist. 47, and c. 8, causa xiv. q. 4. 



NICJEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 427 

" It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod, 
that in certain places and cities deacons administer the Eucha 
rist to priests, although it is contrary to the canons and to 
custom to have the body of Christ distributed to those who offer 
the sacrifice by those who cannot offer it. The Synod has also 
learned that some deacons receive the Eucharist even before 
the bishops. This must all now cease : the deacons must re 
main within the limits of their functions, and remember that 
they are the assistants of the bishops, and only come after the 
priests. They must receive the Eucharist in accordance with 
rule, after the priests a bishop or a priest administering it to 
them. The deacons ought no longer to sit among the priests, 
for this is against rule and order. If any one refuses to obey 
after these rules have been promulgated, let him lose his 
diaconate." 

Justin Martyr 1 declares that in the primitive Church the 
deacons were in the habit of administering to each one of 
those present the consecrated bread and the holy chalice. 
Later it was the bishop or the celebrating priest who ad 
ministered the holy bread, and the deacon administered only 
the chalice : this is what the Apostolical Constitutions order. 2 
We see that this was still the custom in the time of S. 
Cyprian, by this sentence taken from his work de Lapsis: 
Solemnibus adimpletis calicem diaconus offerre prcesentilus ecepft. 
It is evident that the word offerre cannot signify here to cele 
brate the holy sacrifice, but merely to administer ; the ex 
pression solemnibus adimpletis shows that the divine service 
was already finished, and consequently there is no question 
here of celebrating, but merely of administering the chalice 
for communion. In other analogous passages this meaning 
of offerre is not so clearly indicated, and thence has arisen 
the mistake that the deacons could also offer the holy sacri 
fice. 3 It must not be forgotten, however, that certain deacons 
did in fact venture to offer the holy sacrifice ; for the first 
Council of Aries says in its fifteenth canon : De diaconibus 
quos cognovimus multis locis offerre, placuit minime fieri debere. 
It is not unlikely that during the persecution of Diocletian, 

1 Apologia, i. Nos. 65, 67. 2 Lib. viii. cli. 13. 

3 Ct Biutaim, Denkw. Bd. i. Thl. i. S. 357 f. 



428 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

when very many bishops and priests had been driven away 
or put to death, some deacon allowed himself to celebrate the 
eucharistic sacrifice ; but such an act was altogether opposed 
to the spirit and rules of the primitive Church. The Apos 
tolical Constitutions show very plainly that it is forbidden 
for deacons to pronounce the blessing and to offer the holy 
sacrifice (benedicere et offerre). They could only fulfil the 
duties indicated by their name Sta/coi/o?. 1 But it very pro 
bably happened that in some places the deacon had over 
stepped the limit of his powers, and for that reason had 
rendered necessary the prohibition of the Council of Aries. 
I know, indeed, that Binterim has wished to explain this 
canon of the Council of Aries in another way. 2 He supposes 
that the rebuke is not annexed to the word offerre, but merely 
the words multis locis, and he explains the canon as follows : 
" In future, the deacon must no longer celebrate and ad 
minister the holy Eucharist to other congregations besides his 
own." I cannot believe in the accuracy of this explanation, 
and Binterim has certainly done violence to the text of the 
Council of Aries. 

But besides, this canon of Mca3a says nothing directly of 
this pretension of the deacon to wish to consecrate : it has 
rather in view certain other abuses ; and we know from 
another source, that in Christian antiquity there was often 
complaint of the pride of deacons. 3 The deacons of the city 
of Eome have especially been reproached on account of pride, 
and the Council of Aries says on this subject in its eighteenth 
canon : De diaconibus urbicis, ut non sibi tantum prcesumant, 
sed honorem presbyteris reservent, id sine, conscientia ipsorum 
nihil tale faciant. It has been supposed that these pre 
sumptuous deacons of the city of Eome had given occasion 
for the passing of this canon, and that it was decreed on the 
motion of the two Eoman priests who represented the Pope 
at the Council of Mcsea. 4 

In the primitive Church, the holy liturgy was usually 
celebrated by a single person, more frequently by the bishop, 

1 Constitut. apostolicce, viii. 28. 

8 Denkwilrdigkeiten, Bd. i. Thl. i. S. 360. See above, sec. 15. 

8 Cf. Van Espen, Com. in can. p. 101. * Cf. Van Espen, I.e. p. 101. 



NIC^EA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 429 

or by a priest when the bishop was hindered from being 
present ; but the other priests were not merely present at the 
holy sacrifice, as is the custom now : they were besides con- 
sacrificantes ; they did what newly ordained priests do now, 
when they celebrate together with the bishop the mass at 
their ordination. 1 These consacrificing priests ought to have 
received the communion from the hands of the celebrant; 
but in some places the deacons had taken upon themselves 
the right of administering the holy communion to priests as 
well as to the people, and this is the first abuse which the 
canon condemns. 2 The second abuse of which they were 
guilty was, that they T??? Ev^aptcrrla^ aTTTovrau before the 
bishop. It is doubtful what these words mean. The pseudo- 
Isidore, Zonaras, and. Balsamon give the meaning which most 
naturally presents itself: "They go so far as to take the 
Eucharist before the bishop." The Prisca, as well as Diony- 
sius the Less and others, translate aTrrovrai, by contingant, 
that is to say, touch ; and Van Espen interprets the canon in 
this way : " The deacons touch (but do not partake of) the 
holy Eucharist before the bishop." But the word aTTTovrai, 
includes the .idea of partaking as well, as the subsequent 
words in the canon prove, which settle the order to be fol 
lowed in the reception of the Eucharist, and show us conse 
quently that these words T?)? Evxapicrrias aTrrovrai signify 
Eucharistiam sumere. It may be asked how it could happen 
that the deacon could communicate before the bishop. When 
the bishop himself celebrated, this was clearly impossible; 
but it very often happened that the bishop caused one of his 
priests to celebrate, and contented himself with being present 
at the holy sacrifice. The same thing would happen if one 
bishop visited another, and was present at divine service. 
In both cases the bishop would receive the communion im 
mediately after the celebrant, and before the priests. But if 
a deacon undertook to administer the communion to the 
priests, and to the bishop as well, it would happen that the 
bishop would not receive the communion until after the 

1 Cf. Morinus, de SS. ordinatione, Part iii. exercit. 8. 

2 According to the Apostolical Constitutions, the deacons could not ad 
minister the sacred host even to the laity, 



430 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

deacon, for he would always begin by communicating himself 
before administering the communion to others ; and this is the 
abuse which the Council found it necessary to forbid. 

The third encroachment of which the deacons were guilty 
had reference to their places in church. Several among them 
had placed themselves among the priests. The Synod con 
demns this abuse, and finishes with this threat : " Whoever 
shall not obey, after the publication of these rules, shall be 
removed from his diaconate." Unhappily they were not 
strictly observed ; for even after the Council of Mcsea com 
plaints continued to be made of the pride of the deacons, and 
S. Jerome says that " he saw at Borne a deacon who took his 
place among the priests, and who at table gave his blessing 
to the priests." 

Van Espen remarks with truth that this canon of dis 
cipline proves the belief of the Council of Mcaea in three 
great dogmatic truths : (1.) The Council of Mcsea saw in the 
Eucharist the body of Christ ; (2.) It called the eucharistic 
service a sacrifice (irpoo-fyepeiv) ; and (3.) It concedes to 
bishops and priests alone the power of consecrating. 

This canon is found in the Corpus juris canonici? 

CAN. 1 9. 

Ilepl ra)v TlavKiavicrdvTwv^ elra 7rpoa-<f)vy6vTa)v rfi 
EKK\,r)(7ia, 0/309 eKTeOeircu, dvaftaTTTL^ecrdai avrovs 
el Se Tives ev ru> TrapekrfKvOoTi ^povw ev T> 

el JJL^V OfiefiTTTOi fcal dveTriXrjTTroi, (paveiev, dvafiaTmcr- 
^eipoToveio-Qwaav VTTO rov TT}? KaOokiKi]^ J^/c^X^cr/a? 
el Be r) avaKpicris aveTTiT^eiov^ avrovs evplcrKoi, 
KadaipeicrOat, avrovs irpocn^Kei. f /2crauTCt)5 Se /cal Trepl TWV 
) /cal oXw? Trepl T&V ev rw KCLKQVI e^eraLO/jievcDV 6 



TCOV ev TO) (j^jfMarL e^era(70eLcra)V } eTrel /a^Se ^eLpoOecriav 
%ov<ru>, ware e^dnravTos ev Tot? Xat/cot? avra? e^erd^ecr6ai. 

" With respect to the Paulianists, who wish to return to the 
Catholic Church, the rule which orders them to be re-baptized 
must be observed. If some among them w T ere formerly (as 

1 Hieron. Epist. 85, ad Evagr. ; Van Espen, I.e. p. 102. 

2 C. 14, Dist. 93. 



NIC.EA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 431 

Paulianists) members of the clergy, they must be re-ordained 
by the bishop of the Catholic Church after they have been 
re-baptized, if they have been blameless and not condemned. 
If, on inquiry, they are found to be unworthy, they must be 
deposed. The same will be done with respect to the dea 
conesses ; and in general, the present rule will be observed for 
all those who are on the list of the Church. We remind 
those deaconesses who are in this position, that as they have 
not been ordained, they must be classed merely among the 
laity." 

By Paulianists must be understood the followers of Paul 
of Samosata, the anti-Trinitarian who, about the year 260, 
had been made Bishop of Antioch, but had been deposed by 
a great Synod in 269. As Paul of Samosata was heretical 
in his teaching on the Holy Trinity, the Synod of Mcaea 
applied here the decree passed by the Council of Aries in its 
eighth canon : Si ad Ecclesiam aligiiis de hceresi venerit, inter- 
rogent eum symbolum; et si perviderint, eum in Patrc et Filio 
et Spiritu Sancto esse "baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur 
ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod, si interrogatus non respon 
dent hanc Trinitatem, laptizetur. 

The Samosatans, according to S. Athanasius, named the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in administering baptism j 1 but 
as they gave a false meaning to the baptismal formula, and 
did not use the words Son and Holy Spirit in the usual 
sense, the Council of Mcasa, like S. Athanasius himself, consi 
dered their baptism as invalid. Pope Innocent the First said 
of them in his twenty-second epistle, " They do not baptize 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit," 
wishing above all to make it understood by that, that they 
gave to these names an altogether false signification. 2 

The Synod of ISTicsea, regarding the baptism of the Paulian 
ists as invalid, would logically affirm that their ordinations 
were also without value ; for he who is not really baptized 
can clearly neither give nor receive holy orders. Accordingly 
the Synod orders that the Paulianist clergy should be bap 
tized ; but by a wise condescension they permit those among 
these clergy who have received Catholic baptism, and who 

1 Athanas. Orat. ii. contra Arian, No. 43. 2 Of. Tillemont, I.e. iv. 126. 



432 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

have given proofs of ability and of good conduct, to be 
ordained as clergy of the Catholic Church. Those who have 
not these conditions are to be excluded. 

The rest of the text presents insurmountable difficulties, 
if the reading of the Greek manuscripts be adopted, UKTCLVTWS 
/cal nrepl TWV SiaKovicrcr&v. In this case, in fact, the canon 
would order : The deaconesses of the Paulianists can, if they 
are of irreproachable manners, retain their charge, and be 
ordained afresh. But this sentence would be in direct con 
tradiction to the end of the canon, which declares that the 
deaconesses have received no ordination, and ought to be 
considered as simply laity. The difficulty disappears, if in 
the first sentence we read with Gelasius, 1 SiaKovwv instead of 
SiaKovLa-crwiv. The Prisca, with Theilo and Thearistus, who 
in 419 translated the canons of Nicsea for the bishops of 
Africa, have adopted the same reading as Gelasius. The 
pseudo-Isidore and Gratian 2 have done the same ; whilst 
Eufinus has not translated this passage, and Dionysius the 
Less has read SictKovLaawv. 

Van Espen has tried to assign an intelligible meaning to 
this canon, without accepting the variation adopted by so 
great a number of authors. 3 According to him, the Synod 
meant to say this in the last sentence : " We have mentioned 
above in particular the deaconesses, because it would not have 
been otherwise possible to grant them the conditions which 
have been made for the Paulianist clergy, and because they 
would have been looked upon as simple lay-persons, seeing 
that they have not been ordained." It is easy to see that 
Van Espen here inserts a meaning which is foreign to the 
text. Aubespine 4 has attempted another explanation, which 
has been in later times adopted by Neander. 5 He supposes 
that the deaconesses of the Paulianists were of two kinds : 
those who were really ordained, and those widows who had 
never received ordination, and who had only by an abuse the 
name of deaconesses. The canon would continue the first 
in their charge, and place the second among the laity. But 

1 Mansi, ii. 906. * Corpus juris, c. 52, causa 1, rjiicsst. 1. 

3 Van Espen, I.e. p. 103. 4 Tillcmont, I.e. p. 362. 

5 Ncander, I.e. S. 322. 



NIOEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 433 

t 

the text itself does not make the least allusion to these two 
kinds of deaconesses ; and what Neander alleges against the 
opinion of those who read Sia/covoov instead of iaKovicrcr&v has 
no weight. According to him, it would have been super 
fluous to speak again specially of the deacons in this passage, 
since the clergy in general had already been spoken of in 
that which precedes. It may be answered, that if the Synod 
wished to make it understood that the present rules extended 
to all degrees of the clergy, there is an explanation of its 
reason for making express mention of the deacons and in 
ferior clergy. 

The words of the canon, eirel fjL^e %eipo9e<rlav TLVCL e^pva-Lv, 
still make the meaning of the sense difficult, and appear 
opposed to the variation we have adopted. It cannot be 
denied that the Apostolical Constitutions really speak of the 
ordination of deaconesses by the imposition of hands, 1 and the 
Council of Chalcedon speaks of it still more clearly in its 
fifteenth canon. According to this canon, on the contrary, 
the deaconesses would not have received any imposition of 
hands. Valesius 2 and Van Espen 3 have sought to solve this 
difficulty by saying that, at the time of the Council of ISTicsea, 
the custom had not yet been introduced of laying hands on 
deaconesses. But the Apostolical Constitutions testify to the 
contrary. Aubespine has put forward another explanation, 4 
which proceeds from his theory analysed above : he maintains 
that the deaconesses of the Catholic Church were truly 
ordained by the imposition of hands, but that among the 
Paulianists there were two classes of deaconesses, an ordained 
and an unordained. It seems to us that a third solution 
of this difficulty might be found, put forward by Baronius, 5 
and adopted by Justell. 6 In supposing that at the time of 
the Council of Nicsea the deaconesses received imposition of 
hands, it must, however, be remembered that this act was 
essentially different from clerical ordination properly so called : 
it was a mere benediction, not an ordination. In describing, 

1 Constitut. Apostol. viii. 19. 

2 Annotat. ad Sozom. Hist. Ecd. viii. 9. 3 Van Espen, l.c, p. 103. 
4 Cf. Bingham, Origines, etc., i. 356. 5 Ad ann. 34, No. 288, 

* Bingham, I.e. p. 359. 

2 E 



434 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

then, clerical ordination by ^eipoOecria sensu strictiori, it might 
be said that the deaconesses had received no ^eipoOeaia. 
The decree against the Meletians, and the eighth canon of 
ISTicsea against the Novatians, prove that the Fathers of Nicsea 
took the word %eipo0eo-ia as synonymous with mere bene 
diction. 

\ CAN. 20. i .- 

e? elcnv ev Ty KvpiaKy <yovv K\ivovre<; /cal ev rat? 



7revT6KO(7 r Tr)s fj/jiepais vjrep rov Trdvra ev Trdarj 



i,, ecrrcoras eSo^e TTJ dyla c-vvoSa) ra-9 eu^a? CLTTO- 
T(o Sew. 

" As some kneel on the Lord s day and on the days of 
Pentecost, the holy Synod has decided that, for the observ 
ance of a general rule, all shall offer their prayers to God 
standing." 

Tertullian says in the third chapter of his book de Corona, 
that Christians considered it wrong to pray kneeling on Sun 
days. This liberty of remaining standing, he adds, is granted 
us from Easter to Pentecost. By the word nevTij/coo-rr} the 
single day of Pentecost must not be understood, but rather 
the whole time between Easter and Pentecost. It is thus, 
for example, that S. Basil the Great 1 speaks of the seven 
weeks of the TTJS tepd? IlevTqKoo-Trjs. 2 Instead, then, of pray 
ing kneeling, as they did on other days, Christians prayed 
standing on Sundays and during Eastertide. They were 
moved in that by a symbolical motive : they celebrated 
during these days the remembrance of the resurrection of 
Christ, and consequently our own deliverance through His 
resurrection. All the Churches did not, however, adopt this 
practice ; for we see in the Acts of the Apostles 3 that S. Paul 
prayed kneeling during the time between Easter and Pente 
cost. The Council of Mcsea wished to make the usual prac 
tice the universal law ; and the later Fathers of the Church, 
e.g. Ambrose and Basil, show 4 that this custom spread more 
and more. The Catholic Church has preserved to our days 

1 De Spirltu sancto, c. 27. 

2 See Suicer s Thesaraus at the word 

3 xx. 36 and xxi. 5. 

4 Cf. Van Espen, I.e. p. 104. 



NIOEA: PAPHNUTIUS AND THE LAW OF CELIBACY. 435 

the principal direction of this canon, and it has been inserted 
in the Corpus juris canonici. 1 

SEC. 43. Paplinutius and the projected Law of Celibacy. 

Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius affirm 2 that the Synod of 
Nicsea, as well as that of Elvira (can. 33), desired to pass a 
law respecting celibacy. This law was to forbid all bishops, 
priests, and deacons (Sozomen adds subdeacons), who were 
married at the time of their ordination, to continue to live with 
their wives. But, say these historians, the law was opposed 
openly and decidedly by Paphnutius, bishop of a city of the 
Upper Thebai s in Egypt, a man of a high reputation, who 
had lost an eye during the persecution under Maximian. 3 
He was also celebrated for his miracles, and was held in so 
great respect by the Emperor, that the latter often kissed the 
empty socket of the lost eye. 4 Paphnutius declared with a 
loud voice, " that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon 
the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of them 
selves honourable and undefiled ; that the Church ought not 
to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in 
absolute continency : in this way (by not prohibiting married 
intercourse) the virtue of the wife would be much more cer 
tainly preserved (viz. the wife of a clergyman, because she 
might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from her 
married intercourse). 5 The intercourse of a man with his 
lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would there 
fore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the 
Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being 
married were prohibited from marrying afterwards ; but those 
clergy who had been married only once, as laymen, were not 
to be separated from their wives (Gelasius adds, or being only 
a reader or cantor)." This discourse of Paphnutius made so 
much the more impression, because he had never lived in 
matrimony himself, and had had no conjugal intercourse. 

1 C. 13, Dist. 3, de consecratione. 

2 Socrat. Hist. EccL i. 11 ; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 23 ; Gelas. Cyzic. Hist. 
Concilii Nic. ii. 32 : in Mansi, ii. 906, and in Hard. i. 438. 

3 Paifin. Hist. Eccl i. (x.) 4. * Kufin. lc. 
6 Compare the sixty-fifth, canon of Elvira. 



436 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Paphnutius, indeed, had been brought up in a monastery, and 
his great purity of manners had rendered him especially 
celebrated. Therefore the Council took the serious words of 
the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion 
upon the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of 
deciding the point as he would. 

If this account be true, we must conclude that a law was 
proposed to the Council of Nicsea the same as one which had 
been carried twenty years previously at Elvira, in Spain : this 
coincidence would lead us to believe that it was the Spaniard 
Hosius who proposed the law respecting celibacy at Mccea. 1 
The discourse ascribed to Paphnutius, and the consequent 
decision of the Synod, agree very well with the text of the 
Apostolic Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the 
Greek Church in respect to celibacy. 2 The Greek Church as 
well as the Latin accepted the principle, that whoever had 
taken holy orders before marriage, ought not to be married 
afterwards. In the Latin Church, bishops, priests, deacons, 
and even subdeacons, 3 were considered to be subject to this 
law, because the latter were at a very early period reckoned 
among the higher servants of the Church, which was not the 
case in the Greek Church. 4 The Greek Church went so far as 
to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if previously 
to it they had expressly obtained from their bishop permission 
to do so. The Council of Ancyra affirms this (c. 10). We 
see that the Greek Church wished to leave the bishops free to 
decide the matter; but in reference to priests, it also pro 
hibited them from marrying after their ordination. 5 

Therefore, whilst the Latin Church exacted of those pre 
senting themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that 
they should not continue to live with their wives if they were 
married, the Greek Church gave no such prohibition ; but if 
the wife of an ordained clergyman died, the Greek Church 

1 Cf. Drey, Neue untersuchungen uber die Constitutionen und Canonen der 
Apostel, S. 57 and 310. 

2 vi. 17. Upon the question of celibacy and ecclesiastical legislation, cf. a 
dissertation "by the author, in der neuen Sion, 1853, ISTr. 21 ff. Hefele treats 
of what relates to the Latin Church as well as to the Greek. 

3 Cf. Concil. Elvir. can. 33. 4 Cf. Drey, S. 311, I.e. 

5 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 309. See also the rule of the Council of Neoccesarea, c. I. 



PAPHNUTIUS AND THE LAW OF CELIBACY. 437 

allowed no second marriage. The Apostolic Constitutions 1 
decided this point in the same way. To leave their wives 2 
from a pretext of piety was also forbidden to Greek priests ; 
and the Synod of Gangra (c. 4) took up the defence of mar 
ried priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius, however, 
was not alone among the Greeks in opposing the marriage 
of all clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek 
Church the Latin discipline on this point. S. Epiphanius also 
inclined towards this side. 3 The Greek Church did not, 
however, adopt this rigour in reference to priests, deacons, 
and subdeacons ; but by degrees it came to be required of 
bishops, and of the higher order of clergy in general, that they 
should live in celibacy. Yet this was not until after the 
compilation of the Apostolic Canons (c. 5) and of the Constitu 
tions (I.e.) ; for in those documents mention is made of bishops 
living in wedlock, and Church history shows that there were 
married bishops, for instance Synesius, in the fifth century. 
But it is fair to remark, even as to Synesius, that he made it 
an express condition of his acceptation, on his election to the 
episcopate, that he might continue to live the married life. 4 
Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously require 
this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping 
the episcopal office ; which would seem to imply that in his 
time Greek bishops had already begun to live in celibacy. 
At the Trullan Synod (c. 13) the Greek Church finally settled 
the question of the marriage of priests. Baronius, 5 Valesius, 6 
and other historians, have considered the account of the part 
taken by Paphnutius to be apocryphal. Baronius says, that 
as the Council of Nicsea in its third canon gave a law upon 
celibacy, it is quite impossible to admit that it would altei 
such a law on account of Paphnutius. But Baronius is mis 
taken in seeing a law upon celibacy in that third canon : he 
thought it to be so, because, when mentioning the women who 
might live in the clergyman s house his mother, sister, etc. 

1 Const, vi. 17. 2 Canones Apostol. n. 6. 

3 Epiplian. Expositlo Jldei, n. 21, at the end of his "book de Hceresibus. Cf. 
Drey, I.e. S. 312 ; Baron, ad ann. 58. n. 20. 

4 Thomassin, Vetus et nova JEccl. DisclpUna, P. i. lib. ii. c. 60, n. 16. 

5 Ad ann. 58, n. 21. 6 Annotat. ad Socrat. Hist. Heel. i. 11. 



438 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the canon does not say a word about the wife. It had no 
occasion to mention her; it was referring to the crvvzia-aKTot,, 
whilst these avveio-aKToi and married women have nothing in 
common. ISTatalis Alexander gives this anecdote about Paph- 
nutius in full : x he desired to refute Bellarmin, who consi 
dered it to be untrue, and an invention of Socrates to please 
the Novatians. JSTatalis Alexander often maintains erroneous 
opinions, and on the present question he deserves no confi 
dence. If, as S. Epiphanius 2 relates, the JSTovatians maintained 
that the clergy might be married exactly like the laity, it 
cannot be said that Socrates shared that opinion, since he 
says, or rather makes Paphnutius say, that, according to ancient 
tradition, those not married at the time of ordination should 
not be so subsequently. Moreover, if it may be said that 
Socrates had a partial sympathy with the JSTovatians, he cer 
tainly cannot be considered as belonging to them, still less 
can he be accused of falsifying history in their favour. He 
may sometimes have propounded erroneous opinions, but there 
is a great difference between that and the invention of a whole 
story. 3 Valesius especially makes use of the argument ex 
silentio against Socrates, (a.) Eufinus, he says, gives many 
particulars about Paphnutius in his History of the Church: 41 
he mentions his martyrdom, his miracles, and the Emperor s 
reverence for him, but not a single word of the business about 
celibacy. (&.) The name of Paphnutius is wanting in the list of 
Egyptian bishops present at the Synod. These two arguments 
of Valesius are very weak the second has the authority of 
Eufinus himself against it, who expressly says that Bishop 
Paphnutius was present at the Council of Mcsea. If Valesius 
means by lists only the signatures at the end of the acts of the 
Council, this proves nothing ; for these lists are very imperfect, 
and it is well known that many bishops whose names are not 
among these signatures were present at Nicsea. 5 This argument 
ex silentio is evidently insufficient to prove that the anecdote 
about Paphnutius must be rejected as false, seeing that it is 
in perfect harmony with the practice of the ancient Church, 

1 Hist. Eccl. sec. iv. vol. iv. Diss. 19, p. 389 sqq., ed. Venet. 1778. 
* Epiphan. Hceres. 59, c. 4. 3 Natal. Alex. I.e. p. 391. 

4 Eutin. i. 4. 5 See above, sec. 35. 



NIOEA: SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 439 

and especially of the Greek Church, on the subject of clerical 
marriages. On the other hand, Thomassin pretends that there 
was no such practice, 1 and endeavours to prove by quotations 
from S. Epiphanius, S. Jerome, Eusebius, and S. John Chry- 
sostom, that even in the East priests who were married at the 
time of their ordination were prohibited from continuing to 
live with their wives. 2 The texts quoted by Thomassin prove 
only that the Greeks gave especial honour to priests living in 
perfect continency, but they do not prove that this continence 
was a duty incumbent upon all priests ; and so much the less, 
as the fifth and twenty-fifth apostolic canons, the fourth 
canon of Gangra, and the thirteenth of the Trullan Synod, 
demonstrate clearly enough what was the universal custom of 
the Greek Church on this point. Lupus and Phillips 3 explain 
the words of Paphnutius in another sense. According to them, 
the Egyptian bishop was not speaking in a general way : he 
simply desired that the contemplated law should not include 
the subdeacons. But this explanation does not agree with 
the extracts quoted from Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius, who 
believe Paphnutius intended deacons and priests as well. 

SEC. 44. Conclusion : Spurious Documents. 

It was probably at the conclusion of its business that the 
Council of Mcsea sent to the bishops of Egypt and Libya the 
official letter containing its decisions relative to the three 
great questions which it had to decide, viz. concerning Arian- 
ism, the Meletian schism, and the celebration of Easter. 4 

When the Synod had completed its business, the Emperor 
Constantino celebrated his vicennalia, that is, the twentieth 
anniversary of his accession to the empire. 5 Consequently 
this festival shows the terminus ad quern of the Council. Con- 
stantine was declared Emperor during the summer of 306 ; 
his vicennalia must therefore have taken place during the 
summer or autumn of 325. In order to testify his peculiar 

1 I.e. n. 15 sqq, 2 I.e. n. 1-14 incl. 

3 Kirclienr. Bd. i. K. 64, note 4 ; and Kirclienlex. von Wetzer mid Welte, 
art. Colibat, Bd. ii. S. 660. 

4 Socrat. Hist. Ecd. i. 9. See above, sees. 23, 37, and 49. 

5 Beverecr. I.e. ii. 43 b. 



440 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

respect for the Fathers of Nicsea, i.e. for the Synod itself, the 
Emperor invited all the bishops to a splendid repast in the 
imperial palace. A hedge was formed of a multitude of sol 
diers with drawn swords ; and Eusebius can find no words to 
describe the beauty of the scene to tell how the men of God 
passed through the imperial apartments without any fear, 
through the midst of all these swords. At the conclusion of 
the banquet, each bishop received rich presents from the Em 
peror. 1 Some days afterwards, Constantine commanded another 
session to be held, at which he appeared in person, to exhort 
the bishops to use every endeavour for the maintenance of 
peace ; he then asked them to remember him in their prayers, 
and finally gave them all permission to return home. They 
hastened to do so ; and filled with joy at the great work of 
pacification just concluded by the Emperor and the Council, 
they made known its resolutions 2 in their own countries. 

On his part the Emperor also sent many letters, either in a 
general way to all the Churches, or to the bishops who had 
not been present at the Council ; and in these letters he de 
clared that the decrees of the Council were to be considered 
laws of the empire. Eusebius, Socrates, and Gelasius have 
preserved three of these imperial edicts : 3 in the first, Con 
stantine expresses his conviction that the Nicene decrees were 
inspired by the Holy Spirit ; which shows the great authority 
and esteem in which the decisions of Nicsea were held from 
the very beginning. S. Athanasius gives similar testimony. 
He says, in the letter which he sent to the African bishops, 
in the name of ninety bishops assembled in synod : " It (the 
Synod of NIcsea) has been received by the whole world (vracra 
rj olfcov^vrf} ; and as several synods are just now being assem 
bled, it has been acknowledged by the faithful in Dalmatia, 
Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, the other islands, Sicily, 
Cyprus, Pamphilia, Lycia, Isauria, all Egypt, Libya, and the 
greater part of Arabia." S. Athanasius expresses himself in 
like manner in his letter to the Emperor Jovian in 363 : 5 he 

1 Eusebii Vita Const, iii. 15, 16. 2 Euseb. I.e. c. 20. 

3 Socrat. Hist. Ecd. i. 9 ; Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 17-19 ; Gelas. I.e. ii. 36 : 
in Mansi, ii. 919 sqq. ; Hard. i. 445 sqq. 

* Athanasii Ep. ad Afros, c. i. ; Opp. vol. i. P. ii. p. 712, ed Patar. 
fc Ep. ad Jovian. ; Opp. I.e. p. 623. 



NI&EA : SPUKIOUS DOCUMENTS. 441 

often calls the Synod of Nicsea an oecumenical synod, adding 
that a universal synod had been convoked, that provincial 
councils, which might easily fall into error, might not have to 
decide on so important a subject as Arianism. 1 Finally, he 
calls the Council of Mcsea " a true pillar, and a monument 
of the victory obtained over every heresy." 2 Other Fathers 
of the Church, living in the fourth or fifth centuries, speak of 
the Council of Mesea in the same terms as S. Athanasius, 
showing the greatest respect for its decisions. We may men 
tion Ambrose, Chrysostom, and especially Pope Leo the Great, 
who wrote as follows : Sancti illi et venerdbiles patres, gui in 
iirbe Niccena, sacrilego Ario cum sua impietate damnato, man- 
suras usqiie, in finem mundi leges ecelesiasticorum canonum 
condiderunt, et apud nos et in toto orbe, terrarum in suis consti- 
tutionibus vivunt ; et si quid usquam aliter, quam illi statuere, 
prcesumitur, sine cunctatione cassatur : ut quce ad perpetuam utili- 
tatem generaliter instituta sunt, nulla commutatione varientur? 
Pope Leo therefore considered the authority of the Nicene 
canons to be everlasting ; and he says in the same epistle 
(ch. 2), that they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and that 
no subsequent council, however great, could be compared to it, 
still less preferred to it. (Leo here especially alludes to the 
fourth (Ecumenical Council.) Eastern Christians had so much 
reverence for the Council of Nicsea, that the Greeks, Syrians, 
and Egyptians even established a festival for the purpose of 
perpetuating the remembrance of this assemblage of 318 
bishops at Nicsea. The Greeks kept this festival on the Sun 
day before Pentecost, the Syrians in the month of July, the 
Egyptians in November. 4 Tilleniont says truly : " If one 
wished to collect all the existing proofs of the great venera 
tion in which the Council of Nicaea was held, the enumera 
tion would never end. In all ages, with the exception of a few 
heretics, this sacred assembly at Mcaea has never been spoken 
of but with the greatest respect." 

1 Opp. vol. i. P. i. p. 324, n. 7 ; p. 102, n. 7 ; p. 114, n. 25 ; p. 166, n. 4 ; 
vol. i. P. ii. p. 712, n. 2. 

2 I.e. pp. 718 and 720. 3 Leo. M. Ep. 106, n. 4, ed. Bailer, t. i. p. 1165. 
4 Tillemont, I.e. p. 293 ; Baron, ad ann. 325, n. 185. 

6 Tillemont, I.e. 



442 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

The words of Pope Leo which we have quoted especially 
show the high esteem in which Eome and the Popes held the 
Council of Nicsea. The acts of the Synod were first signed, 
as before said, by the representatives of the Holy See ; and it 
is perfectly certain that Pope Silvester afterwards sanctioned 
what his legates had done. The only question is, whether the 
Council of JSTicsea asked for a formal approbation, and whether 
it was granted in answer to their request. Some writers 
have answered this question in the affirmative ; but in order 
to establish their opinion, have relied upon a set of spurious 
documents. These are : 1st, A pretended letter from Hosius, 
Macarius of Jerusalem, and the two Eoman priests Victor 
and Vincentius, addressed to Pope Silvester, in the name of 
the whole Synod. The letter says, " that the Pope ought to 
convoke a Eoman synod, in order to confirm the decisions of 
the Council of Mcsea." 2d, The answer of Pope Silvester, 
and his decree of confirmation. 2 3d, Another letter from Pope 
Silvester, of similar contents. 3 4/&, The acts of this pretended 
third Eoman Council, convoked to confirm the decisions of the 
Council of Mcsea : this Council, composed of 275 bishops, 
must have made some additions to the Nicene decrees. 4 To 
these documents must be added, 5t7i, the Constitutio Silvestri, 
proceeding from the pretended second Eoman Council. This 
Council does not indeed speak of giving approval to the 
Mcene decrees ; but with this exception, it is almost identical 
in its decisions and acts with those of the third Eoman 
Council. 5 These five documents have been preserved in seve 
ral MSS., at Eome, Koln, or elsewhere : they have been repro 
duced in almost all the collections of the Councils ; but now 
all are unanimous in considering them to be spurious, as they 
evidently are. They betray a period, a way of thinking, and 
circumstances, later than those of the fourth century. The 
barbarous, almost unintelligible Latin of these documents, 
particularly points to a later century, and to a decay in the 
Latin language, which had not taken place at the time of the 
Nicene Synod. 

We may further observe on the subject of these documents : 

1 Mansi, ii. 719. 2 Mansi, ii. 720. 3 Mansi, ii. 721. 

4 Mansi, I.e. 1082 ; Hard. i. 527. 5 Mansi, I.e. 615 



NIOEA : SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 443 

1. Concerning the first : (a.) Macarius of Jerusalem, in this 
document, appears as the principal representative of the Synod 
of Nicaea ; and he is, in fact, made to take precedence of the 
Patriarchs of Alexandria and of Aiitioch, who are not even 
named. Now, at the period of the Council of JSTicsea, the see of 
Jerusalem had no peculiar place of eminence. (/3.) In the super 
scription, instead of " the Synod of Mcsea," etc., the document 
has the words, " the 3 1 8," etc., an expression which was not in 
use at the time of the Council of Nicsea. (7.) This document 
is dated viii. Cal. Julias : we should therefore be led to conclude, 
if we trusted to that date, that the Council asked the Holy See 
for approval of its work a few days after its commencement. 

2. Constant and others prove the spuriousness of the second 
document namely, Silvester s supposed confirmation of the 
Synod on the following grounds : 

(a.) There is in the document a reference to the (false) 
Easter canon of Victorinus (or Victorius) of Aquitania. Now 
Yictorinus did not flourish until 125 years later, about the 
middle of the fifth century. 1 It is true that Dollinger 2 has 
recently offered a different opinion respecting this Victorinus, 
suggesting that it is not Victorius of Aquitania who is re 
ferred to, but a Roman heretic (a Patripassian) of that name, 
who lived at the beginning of the third century. This Vic 
torius was a contemporary of Pope Callistus and of the priest 
(afterwards antipope) Hippolytus, and subsequently resisted the 
Easter canon drawn up by the latter, which afterwards came 
into use, and even the Church doctrine of the Trinity. In 
favour of this theory is the fact, that in the fifth of these 
forged documents Victorius is mentioned along with Callistus 
and Hippolytus, and an anathema is pronounced upon all the 
three. If Dollinger is right, as we cannot doubt, the argu 
ment of Constant must fall away ; but the spuriousness of 
the document is still entirely beyond doubt, and has been 
recognised by Dollinger. 

(/3.) At the end of the document an entirely false chrono 
logical date is given, Constantino VII, d Constantio Ccesare IV. 
consulibus. When Constantine became consul for the seventh 

1 TJeler, Handbuch der Chronologic, Bd. ii. S. 276. 
3 In his Hippolytus, S. 246 ff. 



444 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

time (A.D. 326), his son Constantius was invested with that 
dignity for the first time, and not for the fourth. Such a 
chronological error would certainly not have been committed 
in a writing so important in the Eoman archives. 

3. The spuriousness of the third document betrays itself 
chiefly in the fact that it contains the anathema pronounced 
upon Photinus of Sirmium, which was not put forth until the 
year 351, at the first Synod of Sirmium. 

4. The fourth document is rendered doubtful by the con 
sideration, that it is impossible for all the writers of ancient 
times to have been silent on the subject of a Eoman synod 
so important, and at which 275 bishops were present. 
Athanasius and Hilary speak ex professo of the synods of 
that period ; but neither of them says a word of this great 
Roman Synod, nor gives the slightest intimation of it. Be 
sides, if we give credence to the superscription of this docu 
ment, the Synod must have been held in the presence of 
Constantine the Great, whereas the Emperor was not once in 
Eome during the whole of the year 325. 1 But even if, as 
Binius has suggested, the words prcesento Constantino have 
been erroneously removed from the place where they were 
followed by apud Niccenum, and placed in the title of this, 
it cannot, however, be denied : (a.) That the decree passed 
by this alleged Eoman Synod, which orders that Easter shall 
be celebrated between the 14th and 21st of Msan, is non 
sensical and anti-Nicene. (/5.) Equally incompatible with 
the Mcene period is the rule that clerics are not to be 
"brought before a secular tribunal. This primlegium fori was 
at that time unknown. (7.) Equally absurd is the ordinance 
respecting the degrees in advancing to the episcopate or the 
presbyterate, which directs that one must be an Ostiarius for 
a year, twenty years a Lector, ten years an Exorcist, five years 
an Acolyte, five years a Suldeacon, and five years a Deacon ; 
that is to say, altogether forty-six years in the ministry, be 
fore he could become a priest. Such an absurdity was cer 
tainly never promulgated by a Eoman council. 

5. We have no need to give a particular account of the 
supposed acts of an alleged second Eoman Council in 324, 

1 Ceillier, Histoire generale des auteurs sacres, iv. 613. 



SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 445 

which form the fifth document, as they say nothing of a con 
firmation of the Nicene Synod. As, however, this document 
seems to have proceeded from the same pen as the other 
four, 1 we may, by way of showing how little knowledge the 
forger had of that period, simply point out that this second 
Eoman Council was professedly held during the Mcene 
Synod, as is expressly stated in the Epilogue, 2 and that it 
came to an end on the 30th of May 324, that is to say, a 
whole year before the beginning of that of Mcsea. 

Constant suggests 3 that all these documents must have 
been forged in the sixth century. He has treated particu 
larly of the fifth of the.se spurious documents, and in his pre 
face 4 he suggests that it was composed soon after the time of 
Pope Symmachus. Symmachus had been unjustly accused of 
several crimes, but was acquitted by a Synod which met in 
501 or 503; and at the same time the principle was asserted, 
that the Pope could not be judged by other bishops. In 
order to establish this principle and that of the forum privi- 
legiatum, which is closely connected with it, Constant says 
they fabricated several documents, and among others this 
fifth : the bad Latin in which it is written, and the fact 
that it was discovered in a Lombard MS., have caused it to 
be thought that it was composed by a Lombard residing at 
Borne. A principal argument employed by Constant to show 
that this piece dated from the sixth century, the period during 
which Victorinus of Aquitania lived, has been overthrown by 
Bellinger s hypothesis, to which we have referred. 

All these documents are therefore without doubt apocry 
phal ; but though they are apocryphal, we must not conclude 
from this that all their contents are false, that is to say, that 
the Council of Mcaea never asked Pope Silvester to give his 
approval to their decrees. Baronius thinks that this request 
was really made, 5 and on our part we think we can add to 
his arguments the following observations : 

1 Ballerini, de antiquis collectionibus, etc., in Galland s Sylloge dissert, de 
vetustis canonum collectionibus, i. 394 ; Blascus, de collect, can. Isidori Merca- 
tons, in Galland, Sylloge, I.e. ii. 11, 14. 

2 Mansi, ii. 615. 

3 Epistolce Pontificum, ed. Constant. Prcef. p. Ixxxvi. 

4 99. 5 Ad ann> 325, n . 171 an a 172. 



446 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

(a.) We know that the fourth (Ecumenical Council, held 
at Chalcedon, sent to Pope Leo their acts to be approved 
by him. Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 
following manner to Leo : G-estorum vis omnis et confirmatio 
auctoritati vestrce Beatitudinis fuerit reservata} The Council 
speaks in the same way as Anatolius in the letter which they 
wrote to the Pope : Omnem vobis gestorum vim insinuavimus, 
ad cornel olationem nostrce sinceritatis, et ad eorum, guce a ndbis 
gesta sunt, firmitatem et consonantiam. 2 The Emperor Marcian 
also regarded this approval of the Pope as necessary for the 
decrees passed at Chalcedon; and he asked repeatedly and 
earnestly for this approval, with the suggestion that it should 
be given in a special writing ; and he directed that it should 
also be read everywhere in his Greek dominions, that there 
might be no doubt of the validity of the Council of Chalcedon. 
The Emperor says he is astonished that the Pope had not 
sent these letters of approval : Quas videlicet in sanctissimis 
ecclesiis perlectas in omnium oportebat notitiam venire. This 
omission, he goes on, nonnullorum animis amliguitatem multam 
injecit, utrum tua Beatitude, quce in sancta synodo decreta simt, 
confirmaverat. Et ob earn rem tua pietas literas mittere digna- 
"bituT, per guas omnibus ecclesiis et populis manifestum fiat, in 
sancta synodo peracta a tua Beatitudine rata liab&ri? 
o (6.) These texts, explicit as they are, authorize us in believ 
ing, not quite without doubt, but nevertheless with a certain 
degree of probability, that the principles which guided the 
fourth Council were not strange to the first ; and this pro 
bability is greatly increased by the fact that a Synod com 
posed of more than forty bishops, assembled from all parts of 
Italy, very explicitly and confidently declared, and that in 
opposition to the Greeks, that the 318 bishops at Mcsea con- 
firmationem rerum, atqiie auctoritatem sanctw Romance, ecclesice 
detulerunt* 

(c.) Socrates tells us that Pope Julius asserted: 5 Canon 

1 Opera S. Leon. M. (edit. Bailer.), i. 1263; cf. p. 1126, and ibid. not. 8, 
p. 1134. 

2 Ibid. p. 1100. 

3 Ibid. p. 1182 sq. Cf. p. 1113 and 1120. 

4 Mjinsi, vii. 1140 ; Hard. ii. 856. 5 Hist. Eccl. ii. 17. 



NIC.EA : SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS. 4.47 

ecclcsiasticus vetat, ne decreta, absqiie sententia episcopi Eomani 
ecclesiis sanciantur. Pope Julius then clearly declared not 
only that oecumenical councils ought to be approved by the 
Bishop of Eome, but also that a rule of ecclesiastical dis 
cipline (canon ecclesiasticus) demanded this. We must not 
regard these words as an allusion to this or that particular 
canon. But as Pope Julius filled the Holy See only eleven 
years after the Council of Nicaea, we are forced to believe 
that such a rule must have existed at the time of the Mcene 
Synod. 

(d.) The Collectio Dionysii exigui proves that, about the year 
500, it was the general persuasion at Eome that the acts 
of the Council of Nicosa had been approved by the Pope. 
Dionysius in fact added to the collection of the Mcene acts : 
Et plmuit, id Ticec omnia mitterentur ad episcopum Homw Sil- 
vestrum. 1 It is this general persuasion which probably made 
people think of fabricating the false documents of which we 
have spoken, and gave the forger the hope of passing his wares 
as genuine. 

1 Constant, Epistolce Pontificum, prcef. pp. Ixxxii. and Ixxix. ; and App. pp. 
.51, 52. Cf. Hard. i. 311 ; Richer, who opposes Dionysius, Hist. Condi, i. 
34. 



APPENDIX. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 

ABOUT the year 500 A.D., Dionysius the Less, who was an 
abbot in a monastery at Kome, translated a collection of 
canons from Greek into Latin, for Bishop Stephen of Salona, 
at the head of which he placed fifty canons, which, according 
to him, proceeded from the apostles, and had been arranged 
and collected by their disciple Clement of Eome. Dionysius 
placed after them the canons of Nicsea, of Ancyra, of Constan 
tinople, of Chalcedon, etc. We are still in possession not 
only of this collection, but even of its Prcefatio, which was 
addressed to Bishop Stephen : it is to be found in every good 
collection of the Councils. 1 The words of this preface, 
Canones, qiii dicuntur apostolorum, show that Dionysius had 
some doubt as to the apostolic origin of these canons, which 
is made more evident when he adds : guibus plurimi consensum 
non prcebuere facilem. Dr. von Drey, who is the author of 
the best work upon these apostolic canons, and also upon 
the Apostolic Constitutions, thinks 2 that by plurimi we must 
here understand only the Greeks, for the translation by 
Dionysius is the first Latin translation of these canons. This 
last statement is true ; but we must not conclude from it that 
the Greek text of these canons was not known in the West, 
and especially in Italy, where at this period so many spoke 
Greek. We must not conclude, however, that this sentence 
of Dionysius, Quamvis postea qucedam constitute*, pontificum 
ex ipsis canonibus assumpta esse mdeantur, referred to the 
Popes : the word pontificcs rather signifies the bishops, and 

1 Hard. Collect. Condi, i. 1 ; Mansi, Colled. Condi, i. 3. 

2 S. 206. 

2 F 



450 APPENDIX. 

especially the Greek bishops, who made use of the so-called 
apostolic canons in their Synod, in the arrangement of their 
own canons. 

About fifty years after Dionysius the Less, Joannes Scho- 
lasticus of Antioch, who was made Patriarch of Constantinople 
in 565, published a Greek collection of canons, o-vvray/j,a 
KCLVOVWV, which also contained the apostolic canons ; but instead 
of numbering fifty, they here amounted to eighty-five. This 
collection is still in existence, and was printed in the second 
volume in folio of the Bibliotluca jicris canonici, by Voellus 
and Justellus (Paris 1661). The arrangement of the apostolic 
canons is here also attributed to Clement of Eome, and 
Joannes Scholasticus implies that the most ancient Greek col 
lections of canons also contain the eighty-five apostolic canons. 1 

It is undeniable that the Greek copy which Dionysius had 
before him belonged to a different family of collections of 
Councils from that used by Joannes Scholasticus, for they 
differ frequently, if not essentially, both in text and in the 
way of numbering the canons ; and hence it is explained how 
Dionysius the Less knew only of fifty apostolic canons. It 
is supposed that at first there were indeed only fifty in cir 
culation, and that the thirty-five others were added subse 
quently. However that may be, it is quite certain that, if 
Dionysius the Less did omit these thirty-five canons, it was 
not out of consideration for Kome, as was suggested by De 
Marca ; for none of these canons was so much calculated to 
shock the Roman Church as was the forty-sixth of the first 
series, which, in contradiction of the Pioman practice, declared 
all baptism by heretics to be invalid. 2 

When Joannes Scholasticus became Patriarch of Constan 
tinople, he brought his collection, and consequently also the 
eighty-five apostolic canons contained in it, into ecclesiastical 
use; and in 792, in its second canon, the Trullan Synod de 
clared not only that the eighty-five apostolic canons had the 
force of laws, but besides this, that they must be considered 
as of apostolic origin, whilst they rejected the Apostolic Con 
stitutions. It is quite true, it says, that the apostolic canons 3 

1 Bickell, Geschichte des KircJienrecJits, Giessen 1843, S. 76. 

2 Vgl. Drey, I.e. 207 ; Bickell, I.e. 85. 3 C. 85. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 451 

recommend the observance of the Constitutions; but as the 
latter were soon falsified, the Synod could not accept them. 
It did not, however, doubt their apostolic origin. 1 

The Synod in Trullo being, as is well known, regarded as 
oecumenical by the Greek Church, the authenticity of the 
eighty-five canons was decided in the East for all future time. 
It was otherwise in the West. At the same period that 
Dionysius the Less translated the collection in question for 
Bishop Stephen, Pope Gelasius promulgated his celebrated 
decree, de libris non recipicnclis. Drey mentions it, 2 but in a 
way which requires correction. Following in this the usual 
opinion, he says that the Synod at Rome in which Gelasius 
published this decree was held in 494 ; but we shall see here 
after 3 that this Synod was held in 496. Also Drey considers 
himself obliged to adopt another erroneous opinion, according 
to which Gelasius declared in the same decree the apostolic 
canons to be apocryphal. This opinion is to be maintained 
only so long as the usual text of this decree is consulted, as 
the original text as it is given in the ancient manuscripts 
does not contain the passage which mentions the apostolic 
canons. 4 This passage was certainly added subsequently, 
with many others, probably by Pope Hormisdas (514-543), 
when he made a new edition of the decree of Gelasius. As 
Dionysius the Less published his collection in all probability 
subsequently to the publication of the decree of Gelasius, pro 
perly so called, in 496, we can understand why this decree 
did not mention the apostolical canons. Dionysius the Less 
did not go to Eome while Gelasius was living, and did not 
know him personally, as he himself says plainly in the Prcefatio 
of his collection of the papal decrees. 5 It is hence also plain 
how it was that in another collection of canons subsequently 
made by Dionysius, of which the preface still remains to us, 
he does not insert the apostolic canons, but has simply this 
remark : 6 Quos non admisit universality ego quoque in hoc 

1 Cf. Hard. iii. 1659. 2 S. 214. 

3 [Hefele, Condliengesckichte, Bd. ii.] 

4 Cf. Kallerini, edit. Opp. S. Leonis M. vol. iii. p. clviii. n. iii. ; and Mansi, 
viii. 170. 

5 Hard. i. Cf. Bickell, S. 75. 



452 APPENDIX. 

opere prcetermisi. Dionysius the Less, in fact, compiled this 
new collection at a time when Pope Hormisdas had already 
explicitly declared the apostolic canons to be apocryphal. 1 
Notwithstanding this, these canons, and particularly the fifty 
mentioned by Dionysius the Less, did not entirely fall into 
discredit in the West ; bnt rather they came to be received, 
because the first collection of Dionysius was considered of 
great authority. They also passed into other collections, and 
particularly into that of the pseudo-Isidore; and in 1054, 
Humbert, legate of Pope Leo IK., made the following declara 
tion : dementis liber, id est itinerarium Petri apostoli et canones 
apostolorum numerantur inter apocrypha, EXCEPTIS CAPITULIS 
QUINQUAGINTA, guo& decreverunt regulis orthodoxis adjungencla. 
Gratian also, in his decree, borrowed, from the fifty apostolic 
canons, and they gradually obtained the force of laws. But 
many writers, especially Hincmar of PJieims, like Dionysius 
the Less, raised doubts upon the apostolical origin of these 
canons. From the sixteenth century the opinion has been uni 
versal that these documents are not authentic ; with the excep 
tion, however, of the French Jesuit Turrianus, who endeavoured 
to defend their genuineness, as well as the authenticity of the 
pseudo-Isidorian decrees. According to the Centuriators of 
Magdeburg, it was especially Gabriel d Aubespine Bishop of 
Orleans, the celebrated Archbishop Peter de Marca, and the 
Anglican Beveridge, who proved that they were not really 
compiled by the apostles, but were made partly in the second 
and chiefly in the third century. Beveridge considered this 
collection to be a repertory of ancient canons given by Synods 
in the second and third centuries. In opposition to them, the 
Calvinist Dallseus (Daille) regarded it as the work of a forger 
who lived in the fifth and sixth centuries; but Beveridge 
refuted him so convincingly, that from that time his opinion, 
with some few modifications, has been that of all the learned. 
Beveridge begins with the principle, that the Church in the 
very earliest times must have had a collection of canons ; and 
he demonstrates that from the commencement of the fourth 
century, bishops, synods, and other authorities often quote, as 
documents in common use, the KOVWV a7roaro\iKo^, or 

1 Bickell, I.e. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 4-53 



or ap^aios ; as was done, for instance, at the Council 
of Nicaea, by Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, and by the 
Emperor Constantino, etc. 1 According to Beveridge, these 
quotations make allusion to the apostolic canons, and prove 
that they were already in use "before the fourth century. 

Dr. v. Drey s work, undertaken with equal learning and 
critical acuteness, has produced new results. 2 He has proved, 
1st, that in the primitive Church there was no special codex 
canonum in use ; 2d, that the expression KCLVCOV aTroaroKiKo^ 
does not at all prove the existence of our apostolic canons, but 
rather refers to such commands of the apostles as are to be 
found in Holy Scripture (for instance, to what they say about 
the rights and duties of bishops), or else it simply signifies 
this : " Upon this point there is a rule and a practice which 
can be traced back to apostolic times ;" but not exactly a 
written law. 3 As a summary of Drey s conclusions, the fol 
lowing points may be noted : Several of the pretended apos- / 
tolic canons are in reality very ancient, and may be assigned 
to apostolic times ; but they have been arranged at a much 
more recent period, and there are only a few which, having 
been borrowed from the Apostolic Constitutions, are really 
more ancient than the Council of ISTicsea. Most of them were / 
composed in the fourth or even in the fifth century, and are 
hardly more than repetitions and variations of the decrees 
of the Synods of that period, particularly of the Synod of 
Antioch in 341. Some few 4 are even more recent than 
the fourth CEcumenical Council held at Chalcedon, from the 
canons of which they have been derived. Two collections of 
the apostolic canons have been made : the first after the 
middle of the fifth century ; the second, containing thirty-five 
more than the other, at the commencement of the sixth cen 
tury. Prom these conclusions Drey draws up the following 
table: 5 

1 Cf. Bickell, Gescliich. des Kirclienreclits, S. 82, where all the Quotations from 
ancient authors are collected. 

2 Neue Untersuclmngen uber die Constitutionen u. Canones der Apostel, 
Tiibing. 1832. 

3 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 379 ff. ; Bickell, I.e. S. 81 and S. 5. 

4 C. 30, 81, 83. 
* S. 403 ff. 



454 APPENDIX. 

The apostolic canons are taken, 

1. C. 1, 2, 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, 27, 34, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 
53, 60, 64, and 65, from the six first books of the Apostolic 
Constitutions, which originated in the East, and particularly 
in Syria, in the second half of the third century. 

2. C. 79, from the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitu 
tions, considerably more recent than the six first, but which, 
together with the seventh, was united to the six first books 
before 325. 

3. C. 21-24 and 80, from the Council of Nicaea. 

4. C. 9-16 inclusive, c. 29, 32-41 inclusive, and 76, from 
the Council of Antioch held in 341. 

5. C. 45, 64, 70, and 71, from the Synod of Laodicea. 

6. C. 75, from the sixth canon of the Council of Constan 
tinople, held in 381. 

7. C. 28, from the Synod of Constantinople, held in 394. 

8. C. 30, 67, 74, 81, 83, from the fourth (Ecumenical 
Council. 

9. C. 19 is an imitation of the second canon of ISTeocsesarea. 

10. C. 25 and 26 are from Basil the Great. 

11. C. 69 and 70 from the pretended letter of S. Igna 
tius to the Philippians. 

12. Bather less than a third of the apostolic canons are 
of unknown origin. 

Bickell, in his History of Ecclesiastical Law, while he adopts 
for the most part Drey s conclusions, has shown that he brought 
down the origin of our canons to a period somewhat too 
recent. When, for instance, Drey supposes that the thirtieth 
apostolic canon is taken from the second canon of the fourth 
(Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon, that the eighty-first 
apostolic canon is taken from the third canon, and the eighty- 
third apostolic canon from the seventh canon of the same 
Council, Bickell remarks that the three canons of Chalcedon, 
of which we are speaking, certainly bear some analogy to 
the apostolic canons ; but this analogy, he says, is far from 
being striking, and certainly does not prove that the composer 
of these canons extracted them from those of the Council. 
Besides, it must not be forgotten, that in giving directions as 
to what is to be done when a bishop is formally disobedient 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANOXS. 455 

(that he should be cited three times), the Council of Chalcedon, 
nay, even that of Ephesus (431) and that of Constantinople 
(448), quote canons which they call ecclesiastical and divine. 1 
Now these canons are nothing else but the seventy-fourth 
apostolic canon, which alone gives directions as to what is to 
be done in such a case. Bickell further quotes a passage 
from the acts of the seventh session of the Synod of Ephesus 
held in 431, in which Eheginus Archbishop of Cyprus, in a 
memorandum of which we have now only the Latin transla 
tion, appeals to the canones apostolici, and to the definitiones 
Nicwnce Synodi, to prove his Church to be independent of that 
of Antioch. 2 If, as we doubt not, Eheginus intends here to 
speak of the apostolic canons,, and especially of the thirty- 
sixth (according to Dionysius), it is evident that these canons 
were then in use. This may be further proved from the 
Synod of Constantinople held in 394/ which, in the words 
Ka6a>*s ol aTToaroXifcol Kavbves SiwpicravTo, seems to allude to the 
apostolic canons. 

It is true that Drey endeavours to explain KCLVOVCS TTOCT- 
ToKucol in the sense pointed out above ; but it is probable 
that we must here think of canons formulated and written, 
and not only of an ancient ecclesiastical practice. In fact, (a) 
there is no ancient ecclesiastical custom which ordains that 
a disobedient bishop should be summoned three times. (/3) At 
such a recent period, when there were already collections of 
canons, it was more natural to quote these canons than a 
simple ecclesiastical tradition. (7) The definitiones Niccenw 
Synodi and the canones apostolici would not have been placed 
on an equal footing if these canones had not been positively 
reduced to form. (S) Since these ancient Synods themselves 
quoted canons which they called apostolic, and which, as we 
have seen, were then in use, it must be concluded that it was 
not the apostolic canons which were framed according to the 
canons of these Councils, but that the reverse was the case. 
Drey, as we have already remarked, supposes that a great 
number of the apostolic canons were taken from those of 

1 In Mansi, iv. 1136 sq., 1228, vi. 712, 1038 sqq., 1095 ; Hard. i. 13GO sq., 
1433, ii. 148, 340, 377. 

2 Mansi, iv. 1485 ; Hard i. 1617. 3 Mansi, iii. 853 \ Hard. i. 957. 



456 APPENDIX. 

the Council of Antioch held in 341, and Bickell agrees with 
him on this point. 1 It cannot be denied that Drey s opinion 
has much to be said for it : it does not, however, appear to 
us quite unassailable ; and perhaps it may still be possible 
to prove that the canons of this Council of Antioch were 
rather taken from the apostolic canons. It may also be the 
same with the Synod of Nicsea, which, in its first, second, 
fifth, and fifteenth canons, alludes to ancient canons in use 
in the Church. Perhaps the Council placed the canons re 
ferred to among the apostolic canons which may have circu 
lated in the Church before being inserted in our present 
collection. This hypothesis is in a certain way confirmed 
by a document to which Galland 2 has drawn attention, but 
which Drey and Bickell have overlooked. We have mentioned 
in the present volume, that in 1*738 Scipio Maifei published 
three ancient documents, the first of which was a Latin trans 
lation of a letter written on the subject of Meletius by the 
Egyptian bishops Hesychius, Phileas, etc. This letter was 
written during the persecution of Diocletian, that is, between 
303 and 305 : it is addressed to Meletius himself, and 
especially accuses him of having ordained priests in other 
dioceses. This conduct, they tell him, is contrary to all 
ecclesiastical rule (aliena a, more divino et EEGULA ECCLESIAS 
TIC A), and Meletius himself knows very well that it is a lex 
patrum et propatrum . . . in alienis parceciis non licere alicui 
episcoporum ordinationes cdebrare? Maffei himself supposes 
that the Egyptian bishops were here referring to the thirty- 
fifth canon (the thirty-sixth according to the enumeration of 
Dionysius), and this opinion can hardly be controverted. 

The Greek text of the apostolic canons exists in many 
ancient manuscripts, as well in those which contain the Apos 
tolic Constitutions (and then they are placed at the end in a 
chapter by themselves 4 ), as in the manuscripts of ancient col 
lections of canons. In the ancient collections they generally 
number eighty-five, corresponding to the number found in the 

1 Bickell, S. 79 f. 

2 B ibUoth. vet. PP. t. iii. Prolog, p. x. 

3 Ilouth, Reliquiae same, iii. 381, 382. 

4 Lib. viii. c. 47. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 457 

copies employed by Dionysius the Less and Joannes Scho- 
lasticus. 1 On the other hand, when they are collected in the 
manuscripts of the Apostolic Constitutions, they are divided 
into seventy-six canons. 2 For it mnst not be forgotten that 
in ancient times the number of canons, and the way in which 
they were divided, varied greatly. 

The fifty apostolic canons in the translation by Dionysius 
the Less appeared for the first time in the collection of the 
Councils by Merlin, 8 published in 1523, and they are found 
in the more recent collections of Hardouin 4 and Mansi. 5 
The Greek text was edited for the first time by Gregory 
Haloander in 1531. In 1561, Gentianus Hervetus pub 
lished a superior edition of them. These two latter authors 
divide the canons into eighty-four, and Hervetus division 
has been adopted by Hardouin, 6 Mansi/ and Bruns. 8 In 
our edition we also have adopted the number of eighty-five, 
at the same time accepting for the fifty -first the division 
established by Dionysius the Less. For the sake of per 
spicuity, we have besides placed the two methods of enu 
meration side by side : first that of Dionysius the Less, then 
that of Hervetus, Hardouin, Mansi, and Bruns ; so much the 
more, as all our quotations up to this time have been made 
according to the second enumeration. We shall also borrow 
their Greek text from those authors, which here and there 
differs from the text placed at the end of the Constitutions? 
The Latin translation of the first fifty canons is by Dionysius 
the Less ; that of the last thirty-five is by Cotelerius. 

1 We must mention, however, that Scholasticus gives ISTo. 51 twice over : but 
the first No. 51 is an entirely unknown canon. Cf. Biltlioth. jur. can. of Voellus 
et Justellus, vol. ii. p. 569, tit. xxxvi. 

2 Cf. the edit. Patrum Apostolic. Opp. i. 442 sqq., by Cotelerius. Ueltzen 
replaces the number of 85 in his new edition of the Apostolic Constitutions, 
1853, p. 238 sqq. 

3 See above, p. 67. 4 Hard. i. 33 sqq. 6 Mansi, i. 49 sqq. 
6 Vol. i. p. 9 sqq. * Vol. i. p. 29 sqq. 

8 Bibl Ecdesiast. i. 1 sqq. Cf. Bickell, I.e. S. 72 f. 

9 See this text in the edd. of the Comtit. Apostol by Cotelerius and Ueltzen. 



458 APPENDIX. 



KANONES 

TflN AFIflN KAI IIANSEITTnN An02TOAHN. 

Regulce ecclesiasticce sanctorum apostolorum prolatce per Clementem 

Ecclesice Eomance pontificem. 

CAN. 1. 

-ETT/CTtfOTrO? %eipOTOV6l(T0(0 V7TO eVfcOVeOTTCOZ/ SvO 7J 

Episcopus a duobus ant tribus episcopis ordinetur. 

According to Drey/ this canon is among those whose apos 
tolic origin cannot indeed be proved, but which dates back 
to a very remote antiquity, that is, to the first three centuries 
of the Christian era. Its sources are certainly the Apostolic 
Constitutions. 2 

: CAN. 2. , - . -: - - I 

II peer ftvr epos vfi ez^o? lirLaKoirov ^e^pOTOvelo-do), teal ICIKOVO<$ 

Kdl 01 \OL7Tol K\7]plKOl. 

Presbyter ab uno episcopo ordinetur, et diaconus et reliqui 
clerici. 

The same remarks are applicable as to the first canon. 

^ CAN. 3. 

Ei T? 67TL(TK07ro$ rj TrpecrfivTepos Trapa Trjv TOU Kvplov Sta- 
ra^iv, TJ]V eVl Ty Ova ia, irpoaeve^Krj erepd Tiva eVi TO 6 vena- 
a-rrjpiov, r] fjieXt rj <yd\a TJ dvrl oivov criKepa rj eTUT^evTa rj ftpveiQ 
ij %a)d Tiva r) oaTrpia, GO? irapa TTJV ^idra^iv Kvplov iroiwv, 

vkwv ^IBpcov 77 crTacjbuX?;?, TW Kcup<p TG> 



Si quis episcopus et presbyter prseter ordinationem Domini 
alia quaedam in sacrificio offerat super altare, id est aut mel, 
aut lac, aut pro vino siceram, aut confecta quoedam, aut vola- 
tilia, aut animalia aliqua, aut legumina, contra constitufcionem 
Domini faciens, congruo tempore, deponatur. 

The Latin text by Dionysius the Less, and the Greek text 
as it is to be found in the collections of the Councils, here 
present variations on several points. Thus, (a) the Greek text 
1 I.e. S. 264-271. 2 iii. 20, viii. 4, 27. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 459 

unites into one single canon what Dionysius divides into Nos. 3 
and 4 ; so that in the collections of the Councils the numbers 
of the Greek text no longer coincide with those of the trans 
lation by Dionysius. We have preserved the enumeration of 
Dionysius, and have accordingly divided the Greek canon into 
two. (5) We have not, however, thus produced complete 
harmony between the two texts ; for, according to the Greek 
text, the words prceter novas spicas et uvas belong to the third 
canon, whilst according to Dionysius they form part of the 
fourth. These words are evidently a translation of the Greek 
phrase, 7rX?)i> viwv ^iSpwv rj o-ra^uX?}?. (c) Bearing in mind 
these transpositions, the words congruo tempore in the third 
canon may be explained as follows : " Except fresh ears of 
corn and grapes when it is the right time for them." (d) If 
the words prceter novas spicas et uvas are not placed in the third 
canon, but in the fourth, we must also place the words congruo 
tempore in the fourth, and then the meaning is the same as 
before. As to the antiquity of canons 3-5, we will make the 
following remarks : 4-H three speak of what ought or ought 
not to be offered upon the altar. The substance of these 
rules is ancient : one might even perhaps say that it is partly 
ordained by our Lord Himself ; and it is to this that the first 
words of the third canon refer. The details contained in this 
same third canon seem to have been inserted in order to combat 
the customs of the ancient heretics. The fourth and fifth 
canons are hardly more than explanations and commentaries 
on the third, and thus betray a more recent origin. 1 

CAN. 4 (3). 

Mr) e%ov Se ecrra) TrpocrdyecrOal TL erepov et? TO Ovcriao-Trjptov, 
rj e\aiov et? TTJV \vyyiav KOI Ov^ia^a TOJ /catpoj TT}? dylas 



Offerri non licet aliquid ad altare praeter novas spicas et 
uvas, et oleum ad luminaria, et thymiama id est incensum, 
tempore quo sancta celebratur oblatio. 

CAN. 5 (4). 

e H a\\rj Traaa oTrcopa et? OLKOV aTrocrreXXecr^a), aTrap^rj TO) 
W KOI rot? TTpecrflvrepot,?, d\\a fir) TT^OO? TO 6v(7iacrTr]piov 
1 Vgl. Drey, I.e. S. 335 ff. 



460 APPENDIX. 



o eTaWoTTO? teal ol Trpecr^vTeoi 67Ti^el^ov(7i rot? 



teal rofc XotTrot? 

Keliqua poma omnia ad domum, primitiae episcopo et pres- 
byteris, dirigantur, nee offerantur in altari. Certum est autem, 
quod episcopus et presbyter! dividant et diaconis et reliquis 
clericis. 

For these two, see the remarks on the third canon. 

CAN. 6 (5). : . 

rj Trpecrflvrepos rj Sidicovos TIJV eavrov <yvvaiKa, 
rpo^xicrei evXafteiw edv Be K/3aX\r), a<popiecr0a) 
e, KaOcupeicrOo). 

Episcopus aut presbyter uxorem propriam sub obtentu reli- 
gionis nequaquam abjiciat ; si vero ejecerit, excommunicetur ; 
et si perseveraverit, dejiciatur. 

Drey 1 supposes that Eustathius of Sebaste gave occasion 
for this canon towards the middle of the fourth century. 
Compare canons 1 and 4 of the Synod of Gangra. According 
to the Greek text, it would be necessary to place the words 
et diaconus after the word presbyter in Ihe Latin translation. 

CAN. *7 (6). 

.E7r/cr/<;o7ro<? r irpecrfivrepos rj SICLKOVOS /eooyu/ea? fypovriSas 
fjir) avdXajjLJSaveTO) el Se f^rj, Ka0aipelcr0a). 

Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus nequaquam seculares 
curas assumat; sin aliter, dejiciatur. 

This belongs to the most ancient canons, which contain 
rules perhaps proceeding from the apostles and their disciples ; 
but it must have been arranged more recently (in the third 
century). The Apostolic Constitutions 2 contain a similar rule. 3 



CAN. 8 

Ei Tt9 eTTtWoTTO? r\ TrpecrfBvrepos TI Sidtcovos rrjv dyiav rov 
Tldcr^a rjfjbepav irpo TT}? eapwfjs IcnjfjLeplas fiera lovBatcov 



Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus sanctum 
Paschse diem ante vernale sequinoctium cum Judasis celebra- 
verit, abjiciatur. 

We have seen in the present volume that a fresh difficulty 

1 Constit. Apost. S. 341. 2 ii. 6. 3 Drey, S. 240-248 and 403. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 461 

arose during the third century, added to those already existing, 
for determining the time for celebrating the Easter festival. 
After having discussed whether it ought to be fixed according 
to the day of the week or the day of the month, and after 
having inquired at what time the fast should end, it was 
besides questioned, during the third century, whether Easter 
ought always to be celebrated after the vernal equinox. The 
Council of Nicsea answered this question in the affirmative 
if not expressly, at least implicitly. 1 The Synod of Antioch, 
held in 341, gave a similar decision, and Bickell considers 
that 2 this canon was taken from the first canon of Antioch. 
Drey, 3 on the contrary, believes that the canon of Antioch 
was derived from the Apostolic Constitutions* 

CAN. 9 (8). 

Ei Tt? eWcr/eoTTo? 77 Trpeo-flvrepo? 77 Sid/covos rj e/c rov Kara- 
\6<yov rov iepariKOv Trpoacpopas ^evopevris yJr] /^eraXa/Sot, rr/i> 
alriav eliraTco" KOI lav ev\o<yo<; y, avyyvto/JiTjs rvy^averw el Se 
jjbr] Xeyet, afop^Gcrdco, 005 amo? /SXa/S^9 761/0/^6^0? ra> Xaco teal 
VTTovoiav Troi^cra? tcara rov Trpocre^^/ca^TO?. 

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus vel quilibet 
ex sacerdotali catalogo facta oblatione non communicaverit, 
aut causam dicat, ut si rationabilis fuerit, veniam consequatur, 
aut si non dixerit, communione privetur, tanquam qui populo 
causa Isesionis extiterit, dans suspicionera de eo, qui sacrifi- 
cavit, quod recte non obtulerit. 

The Latin text of Dionysius the Less seems to imply that 
these words ought to- have been added at the end of the 
Greek text, &>? ^ vyifa aveve^Kovros (as if he had not regu 
larly offered) ; and these words are to be found in some Greek 
manuscripts. As to the antiquity of this canon, see the note 
on the one following. 

CAN. 10 (9). 

TldvTas Tou? elaiovras ina-rovs teal TOIV ypa<j)wv aKovovras, 
fjir) Trapa/JLevovras Be rfj Trpoaevxf} ^al Trj ayla ^eTttX?;-v|ret, o>5 
ara^iav efjuTroiovvras rfj e /c/cX^cr/a, dfapi^eaOcu XP?]- 

Omnes fideles, qui ingrediuntur ecclesiam et scripturas 
audiunt, non autem perseverant in oratione, nee sanctam com- 

1 See above, sec. 37. 2 S. 331. 3 S. 403. 4 Consttt. A post. v. 17. 



462 APPENDIX. 

munionem percipiunt, velut inquietudines ecclesise commo- 
ventes, convenit communione privare. 

This tenth canon is evidently connected with the ninth. 1 
Drey believes that in substance they are both very ancient, 
and arose from those times of persecution, during which some 
Christians abstained from receiving the holy communion from 
remorse of conscience. Drey is evidently in the wrong when 
he maintains that this tenth apostolic canon was copied word 
for word from the second canon of the Council of Antioch 
held in 341. The reverse of this is more probable. See our 
introductory remarks on these canons. 

CAN. 11 (10). 

El T? aKOiVWV^ra) KCLV ev OIKW crvvev^rjra^ ovro? d(f)opi,%cr0a). 

Si quis cum excommunicate, etiam domi, sirnul oraverit, et 
ipse communione privetur. 

This canon must be considered, as to its contents, as among 
the most ancient of the apostolic canons, which stretch back 
to apostolic times. As to its present form, Drey 2 supposes 
that it was taken from the second canon of the Council of 
Antioch ; but see what is said at the end of the note on the 
preceding canon. 

CAN. 12 (11). 



o>9 



avTO$. 



Si quis cum damnato clerico, veluti cum clerico, simul 
oraverit, et ipse damnetur. 

On the antiquity of this canon the same observations may 
be offered as those upon the tenth and eleventh. According 
to Drey, 3 this canon must have been formed from the second 
canon of the Council of Antioch. 

CAN. 13 (12). 

Ei Tt9 K\ripuco<$ rj Xat/co? dcfxvpicr/jievos TJTOI aSe/cros, ajreXdcov 
ev erepa TroAet, ^e^dfj avev (ypa^fjidrcov crvcrTaTiKcov, d(j)opi^ecrdco 
Kal 6 Se^yLtO O? /cal 6 $69ek el be dwio-fievo^ ely 



o) a0optcryL609, ft)? ^revaa^ivu) /cal dTrarijcravTi, TTJV 
crlav rov eov. 

Si quis clericus aut laicus a communione suspensus vel 
1 S. 255 f. .and 405. a Lc. S. 405. 3 I.e. S. 405. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 463 

comnmnicans, ad aliam properet civitatem, et suscipiatur 
prater commendaticias literas, et qui susceperunt et qui sus- 
ceptus est, communione priventur. Excommunicate vero pro- 
teletur ipsa correptio, tanquam qui mentitus sit et Ecclesiam 
Dei seduxerit. 

The Greek text has V\TOI aSe/cros, that is, sive excommuni- 
catus. It is supposed that we should rather read rjToi Se^ro?, 
"because in the latter part of the canon two sorts of penalties 
are appointed : (a) When one who is not excommunicated is 
elsewhere received, without having letters of recommendation 
from his bishop, he is to be excommunicated, and also he who 
received them ; (/3) If one who is excommunicated succeeds in 
being received elsewhere, the period of his excommunication 
shall be prolonged. The contents of this canon are certainly 
ante-Mcene. Drey 1 supposes the form to be derived from 
the sixth canon of the Council of Antioch. See the note on 
the tenth canon. 

CAN. 14 (13). 

ETTIO-KOTTOV f^rj e^elvai Karakei^ravTa TTJV eavrov irapouciav 
Tepa 7ri7njBav f KCUV VTTO 7T\i6vo)V avayfcdfyircu, el JJUTJ rt? 
ev\oyos atria y TOVTO /Sia^o^evrj avrov iroielv, w? 7r\eov TI 
KepSo? $vvafji>ov avrov TO?? e/cewre Xc^w evcrefieias crvfi(3d\- 
\e<T0ai Kal TOVTO Be OVK afi eauroi), a\\a KpicreL TroXXwy eVt- 
G&OTCWV Kal TrapaKkricrei /jLeylarTy. 

Episcopo non licere alienam parochiam, propria relicta, per- 
vadere, licet cogatur a plurimis, nisi forte quia eum rationabilis 
causa compellat, tanquam qui possit ibidem constitutis plus 
lucri conferre, et in causa religionis aliquid profectus prospi- 
cere ; et hoc non a semetipso pertentet, sed multorum episco- 
porum judicio et maxima supplicatione perficiat. 

The prohibition to leave one church for another is very 
ancient. It had been before set forth by the Council of 
Aries in 314, and by the Council of Mcsea in its fifteenth 
canon, as well as by the Synod of Antioch in 341, and it was 
renewed by that of Sardica. This fifteenth canon is therefore, 
as to its substance, very ancient ; but its present form, Drey 
supposes, is post-Mcene, as may be inferred, he thinks, from the 
lightening of the penalty, which could not have been decreed 

1 I.e. S. 257 and 405. 



464 APPENDIX. 

by the ancient canons. Drey therefore concludes that this 
canon was framed after the eighteenth and twenty-first canons 
of Antioch. 1 But see the note on the tenth canon. 

CAN. 15 (14). 

EL TIS TTpecrfivTepo? rj Siawo? rj oXw? TOV Kara\6<yov 

? Trjv eauroO TrapoiKiav et9 erepav 



ical Tra^TeXco? fteracrra? biarpiftr) ev a\\rj TrapoiKia irapa 
TOV IStov eTTLCTKOTrov TOVTOV Ke\evo/ji6V fjLr]KTi, \eiTovpyelv, 
fiaXiCTTa el Trpoo-KdXovfjLevov avrov TOV eVicr/coTrou avTOv 
ve\6elv ov% VTrrj/covcrev iTCi^ivtoV Trj aTa^ia" cb? Xai /co? 



Si quis presbyter aut diaconus ant quilibet de numero 
clericorum relinquens propriam parochiam pergat ad alienam, 
et omnino demigrans prater episcopi sui conscientiam in. 
aliena parochia commoretur, hunc alterius ministrare non 
patimur, preecipue si vocatus ab episcopo redire contempserit, 
in sua inquietudine perseverans ; veruin tamen tanquam laicus 
ibi communicet. 

The same remark is applicable as to the fourteenth canon. 
According to Drey, this fifteenth, as well as the following 
canon, must have been formed from the third canon of the 
Council of Antioch, held in 341. See the note on the tenth 
canon. 

CAN. 16 (15). 

El Se 6 eTTiWoTTO?, Trap w Tvyxavovari, irap ovBev Xoylcrd- 
KCLT avT&v opKj6ei(7av apylav, 



Episcopus vero, apud quern moratos esse constiterit, si 
contra eos decretam cessationem pro nihilo reputans, tanquam 
clericos forte susceperit, velut magister inquietudinis com- 
munione privetur. 

The same remark is applicable as to the fourteenth canon. 

CAN. 17 (16). 

f O Su<rt ryajmois o-vfjiTrXa/cels yu-era TO {BaTrTio-fJLa r) iraXh.aKr)V 
KTri&dfjievos ov ^vvaiai elvai eTria-tcoTros rj irpeaj^vrepo^ rj 6X&)? 
TOV KdTaX.o yov TOV iepaTiKov. 

Si quis post baptisma secundis fuerit nuptiis copvilatus aut 

1 Drey, S. 274 and 405. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 4C5 

concubinam habuerit, non potest esse episcopus ant presbyter 
aut diaconus, ant prorsus ex numero eorum, qui ministerio 
sacro deserviunt. 

It is certain that this canon in its snbstance is an apostolic 
ordinance. 1 The form, however, is taken from the Apostolic 
Constitutions? consequently about the third century. 3 

CAN. 18 (17). 

f O xtfpav Aa/Sow ? } e/c/SeySX^tV^y ^7 eraipav rj oltceTiv r) rcov 
ITTL akrivris ov ^vvarai eivai err/cr/toTTo? ?; Trpeafivrepos ?) Sta/eoz O? 
rj oX&;9 rov Kara\6jov rov iepariKov. 

Si quis vidnam aut ejectam acceperit, ant meretricem aut 
ancillary vel aliquam de his qui publicis spectaculis manci- 
pantur, non potest esse episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus 
aut ex eorum numero qui ministerio sacro deserviunt. 

A similar remark applies to this as to the seventeenth 
canon. See Lev. xxi. 14, where we have a similar ordinance 
for the Jewish priests. 4 

CAN. 19 (18). 



zivai 



Qui duas in conjugium sorores acceperit, vel filiam fratris, 
clericus esse non potent. 

This canon, like the preceding, renews a command con 
tained in the Old Testament. 5 The Synods of Elvira 6 and 
of Neocsesarea 7 enforced it also. This nineteenth canon may 
therefore be considered to be contemporary with those synods, 
especially to be an imitation of the second canon of 



csesarea. 8 



CAN. 20 (19). 



Clericus fidejussionibus inserviens abjiciatur. 

We have seen in sec. 4, that from the third century it was 
decidedly forbidden that priests should be tutors or guardians ; 
in a word, that they should meddle with the settlement of 

1 1 Tim. iii. 2-13 ; Tit. i. 5-9; 1 Pet. v. 1-4. 

2 Constit. Apost. vi. 17. 3 Drey, I.e. S. 242 and 403. 
4 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 251 and 403. 5 See Lev. xviii. 16, xx. 21. 
6 Can. 61. ? Can. 2. 8 Drey, I.e. S. 251 and 409. 



466 APPENDIX. 

worldly business. A similar prohibition is given in the pre 
sent canon, which in the main is very ancient, and was taken 
from the Apostolic Constitutions} 

CAN. 21 (20). 

el fjiev ej; eTrrjpeias di>9pa)7rccv eyevero rt?, ^7 ev 
dfpypeOrj TO, dvSp&V) TJ OVTGOS ecjbu, Kai eanv a^ios, 
<yivecr6co. 

Eunuchus si per insidias homimim factus est, vel si in 
persecutione ejus sunt arnputata virilia, vel si ita natus est, 
et est dignus, efficiatur episcopus. 

The (Ecumenical Synod of Mcsea, in its first canon, gave 
a similar command to that contained in this and the two fol 
lowing canons. In enforcing it, the Synod professed to be 
conforming to ancient canons, by which it intended the 
twenty-first, also the twenty-second and twenty-third apos 
tolic canons. Drey, 2 on the contrary, considers that this 
apostolic canon was framed from those of Nicsea ; perhaps it 
may have been the Valesians who gave occasion for these rules. 3 

CAN. 22 (21). , 

O dKpciyrrjpLdaa^ eavrov /jirj tyivecrOa) K\r}pt,Kos avro<povevrijs 
<ydp IdTiv eavrov Kal 7775 rov eov Brj^iovpyla^ e^Opos. 

Si quis absciderit semetipsum, id est, si quis sibi amputavit 
virilia, non fiat clericus, quia suus homicida est, et Dei con- 
ditionibus inimicus. 

See the note on the preceding canon. 

; ( . CAN. 23 (22). 

EL rt? K\r)pirco<s wv eavrov dfcpa)T r]pidG et, J KaOaipeicrOw) 
(povevrrjs <ydp ecrrtv eavrov. 

Si quis, cum clericus fuerit, absciderit semetipsum, omnino 
damnetur, quia suus est homicida. 

The same remark as on the twenty-first canon. 

CAN. 24 (23). 

Aaiicos eavrov dfcpwr^pLdaa^ dfopi^eaOco errj fpia 7nj3ov\&$ 
yap ecm TT}? eavrov 



1 Constit. Apost. ii. 6. Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 248 and 403. See also above, the 
seventh apostolic canon. 

2 S. 266 f. and 410. 3 See above, sees. 4 and 42. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 467 

Laicus semetipsum a"bscindens annis tribus cornmunione 
privetur, quia suee vitse insidiator exstitit. 

The first canon of ISTicsea, which is also on the subject of 
voluntary mutilation, has reference only to the clergy, and 
does not appoint any penalty for the laity who mutilate 
themselves. This might incline us to the opinion that the 
present canon was given to complete those of the Council of 
Nicsea, and consequently that it is more recent than that 
Council. But there is no doubt that the Council of Nicea 
had this canon before it, and spoke of self-mutilation only as 
an impcdimcntum ordinis. Athanasius, in his Historia Arian- 
oriim ad monaclios} shows that voluntary mutilation was also 
severely punished in the laity, and that they were excluded 
from communio laicalis. Drey 2 is of opinion that these canons 
are more recent than those of Nicsea, and that they were 
formed from the latter. 

CAN. 25 (24). 

ETTicrfcoTros r) TT pea {Bvr epos $ &ICLKOVOS 7rl Tropveiq rj eTriop/cta 
r} K\07rf) aXou? KaOaipeiadw, KOI pr) a^opi^eaOco \eyei yap r] 
rypa(f)ij OUK eK$i/ctjcre(,<> St? eVl TO avro o/Wa>9 Be ol \oi7rol 
K\.r)pifcol rf) avrf) aipecrei vTroKelaOwcrav. 

Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus, qui in fornicatione 
aut perjurio aut furto captus est, deponatur, non tamen com- 
munione privetur ; dicit enim Scriptura : Non vindicabit 
Dominus bis in idipsum. 

This canon alludes to a passage in the prophet RTalram. 3 
It certainly belongs in the main to the most ancient canons ; 
for S. Basil the Great says in his letter to Amphilochus (c. 3), 
that, according to an ancient rule (ap^alov icavova), thieves, 
etc., were to be deprived of their ecclesiastical offices. Leo 
the Great, however, calls this an apostolic tradition. 4 Drey 5 
supposes that this sentence of S. Basil s gave rise to the 
canon. 

CAN. 26. 

Similiter et reliqui clerici huic condition! subjaceant. 

In the Greek this canon is not separately counted ; it 

1 C. 28, Opp. vol. i. P. i. p. 884, ed. Patav. 2 I.e. S. 268 and 410. 

3 Nalram i. 9. 4 Ep. 92 (according to Ballerini, Ep. 167), ad Rustic, n. 2. 
6 I.e. S. 244 and 412. 



468 APPENDIX. 

forms only the last sentence of the one preceding. As for 
its antiquity, see the remarks on the twenty-fifth canon. 

CAN. 2*7 (25). 
K\rjpov 7rpoa 
dva>yvoi)crTa$ teal 

Innuptis autem, qui ad clerum provecti sunt, praecipimus, 
ut si voluerint uxores accipiant, sed lectores cantoresque 
tantummodo. 

Paphnutius had declared in the Council of Mcaea 1 in 
favour of an ancient law, which decided that, whoever had 
taken holy orders when unmarried, could not be married 
afterwards. The Synod of Ancyra, held in 314, also recog 
nised this law, and for that reason, in its tenth canon, estab 
lished an exception in favour of deacons. The Council of 
Elvira went still further. These approaches prove that the 
present canon is more ancient than the Council of Mcsea, 
and that it is a faithful interpreter of the ancient practice of 
the Church. Even Drey 2 says that this canon is taken from 
the Apostolic Constitutions (vi. 17), and consequently is ante- 
Nieene. 

CAN. 28 (26). 

TJ Trpecrfivrepov TJ Sid/covov TVTTTOVTO, irurrofa 
rj a-Tr/crrou? dSiK^o-avTaS) TOV Bia TOLOVTWV <f>o{3elv 
6e\ov7a } KaOaipelcrOai irpoo-TaTTO^ev ovSa^ov jap 6 Kvpios 
TOVTO r)fjid<s IBiSa^e rovvawriov Se avros TVTTTOfjLevo? OVK avre- 
TV7TT6, \oiopovfjievos OVK dvT6\ot,$6pei, 7rdcr^(cov OVK r)7Tei\ei,. 

Episcopum aut presbyterum aut diaconum percutientem 
fideles delinquentes, aut infideles inique agentes, et per hujus- 
modi volentem timeri, dejici ab officio suo prsecipimus, quia 
nusquam nos hoc Dominus docuit ; e contrario vero ipse, cum 
percuteretur non repercutiebat, cum malediceretur non remale- 
dicebat, cum pateretur non comminabatur. 

Drey believes this canon to be one of the most recent of 
the apostolic canons, 3 for no ancient synod ever thought it 
necessary to put forth such decisions. The Synod of Con 
stantinople, held A.D. 394, was the first to forbid the clergy to 

1 See sec. 43. 2 I.e. S. 307 ff. and 403. 

3 S. 345 and 410. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 469 

strike the faithful, and this apostolic canon is only an imita 
tion of that. 

CAN. 29 (27). 

Et T9 7ri(7K07ro<s ; vrpecr/Surepo? rj Sidfcovos Ka9aipe0el$ 
eirl erytckijiJiacri (pavepot? Tokf^ijcreLev a-^aadat, rrjs irore e 

Xeirovpytas, ouro? TravraTraa-iv eKKOTrreaOa) r?}? 



Si quis episcopus aut presbyter ant diaconus, depositus 
juste super certis criminibus, ausus fuerit attrectare mini- 
sterium dudum sibi commissum, hie ab Ecclesia penitus ab- 
scindatur. 

This canon is similar to the fourth of the Council of 
Antioch, held in 341. Drey believes l this apostolic canon 
to be more recent than that of Antioch, and intended to cor 
rect it ; for the latter refers only to the case of a bishop who 
is regularly deposed, and that for acknowledged sins. But it 
may be, on the contrary, that our canon is more ancient than 
that of Antioch. The Fathers of Antioch perhaps only 
applied to S. Athanasius the orders of a rule before known. 
See the comments upon the tenth canon. 

CAN. 30 (28). 

EL T? eV/o7f07ro<? Sia ^pTj/jbdrcov TT}? a^/a? ravr??? 



, f) irpecr(3vTepos YI Sta/coz/o?, KdOaipeiaQa) KOL avros teal 
6 %eipOTOvr)cras, KOI eKKOTrreaOco TT}? KOLvwvias TravraTracnv, w? 
^i^iwv o fidyos CLTTO e/zoi) TLerpov. 

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus per pecunias 
hanc obtinuerit dignitatem, dejiciatur et ipse et ordinator ejus, 
et a communione omnibus modis abscindatur, sicut Simon 
magus a Petro. 

We have seen in the comments upon the canons of the 
Synod of Elvira, that this Council in its forty-eighth canon 
forbade all fees for the administration of baptism as simoniacal. 
The Council, however, did not use the word simony; but at the 
time when the thirtieth apostolic canon was formed, the word 
simony seems to have been used as a technical term. This 
observation would go to prove that this apostolic canon has 
a later origin : it is hardly probable, indeed, that in times of 

1 S. 293 ami 405. 



470 APPENDIX. 

persecution it should have been attempted to buy bishoprics 
for money. But the Synod of Sardica shows from its second 
canon that it was then aware of such cases. Abuses of the 
same kind also drew S. Basil s attention. 1 Drey 2 thinks that 
this thirtieth apostolic canon is only an extract from the second 
canon of the Council of Chalcedon. See the remarks above. 

, ; CAN. 31 (29).. 

Ell T? eTTlCrKOTTOS KQUfJiLKot^ Ctp^OVCTL %p7)CrdfJi6VOS 

ey/cpar?]? yevrjrat, eKKX^ala^ Ka0at,pelo-0co KOI d(f>opi%ea-0ci), 
ol KQIVWVOVVTZS avTO) TrdvTes. 

Si quis episcopus secularibus potestatibus usus ecclesiam 
per ipsos obtineat, deponatur, et segregentur omnes, qui illi 
communicant. 

The object of this canon is to oppose the intervention of 
Christian Emperors in the choice of bishops : it is not pro 
bable that it was decreed by an ancient council ; rather it 
must have been composed by whoever collected the apostolic 
constitutions and canons. Drey 3 strongly doubts whether 
any ancient council would have dared to offer such explicit 
and declared opposition to the Emperors. 

CAN. 32 (30). 

EL Tt9 7rpe<Tj3vTpo<; Kara^povrjcras TOV lo iov iirio KOTTOV 
crvva<ya)<yr]v /cal OvcnaaTrjpiov Trrj&L, fJLrjbzv Kareyvco/co)^ TOV 
(TKOTTQV ev evae/Sela /cal Sucaiocrvvr), Ka6aipeicr6a) co? 
Tvpavvos yap ecrrw cocrauTO)? 8e Kal ol XotTrol K\7)piKol KOI oaoi 
ev avro) 7rpocr8a)VTai, ol Se Xa i/col afyopi^eaOwcrav ravra Se 
fjiera fjiiav /cal Sevrepav Kal TpiTTjv irapaKk^cnv TOV eTTLcr/coTrov 
yweadco. 

Si quis presbyter contemnens episcopum suum seorsum 
collegerit et altare aliud erexerit, nihil habens quo reprehendat 
episcopum in causa pietatis et justitise, deponatur, quasi prin- 
cipatus amator existens, est enim tyrannus ; et cseteri clerici, 
quicumque tali consentiunt, deponantur., laici vero segregentur. 
Hsec autem post unam et secundam et tertiam episcopi ob- 
testationem fieri conveniat. 

It happened, even in the primitive Church, that priests 

1 JSpistokt 7G. 2 Ic. S. 352 if. and 411. 3 S. 361. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 471 

caused schisms : this was the case, for instance, in the ISTova- 
tian schism. But as the synods of the fourth century, and 
particularly that of Antioch, held in 3 4 1, 1 treat of the same 
subject as the thirty-second apostolic canon, Drey 2 considers 
that this canon was formed after the fifth of Antioch. But we 
will here once more recall what we said on the tenth canon. 

CAN. 33 (31). 

EL ri? Trpeafivrepo? rj Sid/covo? CLTTO ITTIO-KOTTOV <yei>T]Tcu d<pco~ 
, TOVTOV /A?) e^elvai Trap erepov Be^eadai,, aXX rj Trapa 



rov picravTos avrov, el /ATJ av Kara ffvyicupav re^evrorrj 
avrbv 



Si quis presbyter aut diaconus ab episcopo suo segregetur, 
hunc non licere ab alio recipi, sed ab ipso, qui eum sequestra- 
verat, nisi forsitan obierit episcopus ipse, qui eum segregasse 
cognoscitur. 

We have several times had occasion to remark that the 
ancient councils gave similar rules to those of the thirty-third 
apostolic canon. Drey believes this canon to be in substance 
of very high antiquity, but in its form taken from the sixth 
canon of Antioch. 

CAN. 34 (32). 

TCOV ijevaiv IITKJK.QTTWV TJ TT peer five epwv tf SiaKovcov avev 
TrpoaSe^ecrdai, KOI ein^epofjievwv avrwv avaKpivicr- 
Owcrav KCLI el JJLZV wcrt Kripvices TT}? evae/Betas, 7rpo(i$e%e(T0c0crav, 
el 8e ^7^, TTjv y/petav avTols e7r^op7]yr)(7avTe^ et9 Koivuviav 
CLVTOVS JJLTJ Trpoo-^e^Tjcrde 7ro\\a yap Kara aw u pTrayrjv ylverat. 

Nullus episcoporum peregrinorum aut presbyterorum aut 
diaconorum sine commendaticiis recipiatur epistolis ; et cum 
scripta detulerint, discutiantur attentius, et ita suscipiantur, 
si prsedicatores pietatis exstiterint ; sin minus, haec qu?e sunt 
necessaria subministrentur eis, et ad communionem nulla- 
tenus admittantur, quia per subreptionem multa proveniunt. 

The thirteenth canon contains a similar rule. In the primi 
tive Church, Christians who travelled could not in fact be 
received into a foreign church without letters of recommen 
dation litteris commendaticiis. Thus, for instance, about the 
middle of the second century, Marcion was not received at 

1 C. 5. 2 S. 257 and 405. 



472 APPENDIX. 

Rome, because lie had no letters with him from his father the 
Bishop of Sinope. There is also mention of these letters of 
recommendation in the twenty-fifth canon of the Synod of 
Elvira, and in the ninth of that of Aries. According to Drey, 1 
this canon in the main belongs to the most ancient apostolic 
canons ; but according to the same author, 2 it must have been 
arranged after the Apostolic Constitutions? and after the seventh 
and eighth canons of Antioch. 

CAN. 35 (33). 

Tow? eVicr KOTTOV? eKaaTov Wvovs elSevai. %pr) TOV ev 
Trpwrov, KOI rjyelcrOaL avrov o>? Kefyakrjv, fcal fjurjBev TI 
dvev TT}? Ixefoov 7^0)^975* eKeiva Se fjibva 
, ocra rfj avrov Trapoi/cla e7rt/3a\Aet KCU rat9 VTT avrrjv 
aXXa fiySe KUtO$ avev TT}? irdvTWV 7^60/^7;? Troieira) TV 
<yap ofjLovoia ecrTai, Kal So^aaOtfcreTai, 6 @eo? Sia Kvpiov 
ev dyia) TIvev/jLari,. 

Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit, quis inter eos 
primus habeatur, quern velut caput existiment, et nihil am- 
plius praster ejus conscientiam gerant quani ilia sola singuli, 
quse parochise proprise et villis, quse sub ea sunt, competunt. 
Sed nee ille preter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid. Sic 
enim unanimitas erit, et glorificabitur Deus per Christum in 
Spiritu sancto. 

According to Drey s 4 researches, this canon is either an 
abridgment of the ninth canon of the Council of Antioch, held 
in 341, which treats of the same subject, or else this canon 
of Antioch is an amplification of the apostolic canon. Drey 5 
finally adopts the former opinion. 

CAN. 36 (34). . 

^77 rdX/jiav e%a) T&V eavrov opcov y(lpOTOvia$ 
et? ra? fJirj vTroiceiiJLevas avra) TroXet? KOI ^copa? el Se 
rovro TrejroirjK&s Trapa TVJV T&V Kcurzyoviutv ra? TTO- 
l&elvas rj ra? %ct)pas yv^^v, KaOatpelaOa) KCU avros teal 



01)9 



Episcopum non audere extra terminos proprios ordinationes 
Cacere in civitatibus et villis, quas ipsi nullo jure subjectae 

1 I.e. S. 257 ff. 2 S. 403 and 406. s Ccnstit. Apost. ii. {58. 

4 S. 323-331. 5 S. 40G. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 473 

sunt. Si vero convictus fuerit hoc fecisse prseter eorum con- 
scientiam, qui civitates illas et villas detinent, et ipse depo- 
natur, et qui ab eo sunt ordinati. 

A similar rule was adopted by the Synod of Elvira, 1 by that 
of Nicsea, 2 and by that of Antioch. 3 Drey acknowledges (S. 
271 and 406) that the rule here expressed has been observed 
from the first times of the Church ; he also makes no difficulty 
in classing this canon, in the main, among the most ancient 
apostolic canons. He thinks, besides, that it was taken from 
the Synod of Antioch held in 341. 

CAN. 37 (35). 

Ei T/-? %eipoTOvr)6els eTTtV/eoTro? fjirj /caraSe^otro TVJV \eirovp- 
<ytav teal Trjv (frpovriSa TOV Xaou Tr/i> ey^eipicrOeia-av CLVTM, 
TOVTOV dffiwpicrfJLevov Tvy^dveiv, eco? av KaraBe^Ta^ cocravrw? 
Kai 7rpe<7/3uTep05 rj Sidftovos. El teal fjirj SeyOeirj, ov irapa rrjv 
eavrov ryvw/jLTiv, a\\a Trapa TTJV TOV \aov fJLO^Orjpiav, avrbs 
fcei/erco eVtcr^OTro?, o Se K\r)po<? T^? TroXeco? a<f)0piecr6co, on 
TOLOVTOV \aov avvTTOTafCTOV Tra&evTal OVK eyevovro. 

Si quis episcopus non susceperit ofhcium et curam populi 
sibi commissam, hie communione privetur, quoadusque con- 
sentiat obedientiam commodans, similiter autem et presbyter 
et diaconus. Si vero perrexerit, nee receptus fuerit non pro 
sua sententia, sed pro populi malitia, ipse quidem maneat 
episcopus, clerici vero civitatis communione priventur, eo quod 
eruditores inobedientis populi non fuerint. 

This rule was made partly by the Synod of Ancyra 4 and 
partly by that of Antioch. 5 Drey 6 holds this canon to be an 
imitation of the two canons of Antioch ; but perhaps the con 
trary is really the truth. See the note on canon 10. 

CAN. 38 (36). 

Aevrepov TOV erou? crvvo^tos <yivcr6(d T&V eTTicncoTTCDV, KCLL 
avaKpiverwa-av aAA?;Xou9 ra ^oyf^ara r^5 evaepeias / 
e/c/cXTjo-iao-Tifcas avriXoylas Siahvercocrav 
rfj rerdprrj e/SSo/Ado t, T^5 Tre^r^/cocrT?}?, bevrepov Se v 
ffeperaiov 



C. 20. 2 C. 16. 3 C. 13 and 22. 

* C. 13. " C. 17 and 18. 6 U. S. 294 and 406 



474 APPENDIX. 

Bis in anno episcoporum concilia celebrentur, tit inter se 
invicem dogmata pietatis explorent, et emergentes ecclesias- 
ticas contentiones amoveant ; semel quidem quarta septimana 
pentecostes, secundo vero duodecima die mensis Hyperberetsei 
(id est juxta Komanos quarto idus Octobris). 

The Synods of Mcsea 1 and of Antioch 2 also gave rules about 
provincial synods. According to Drey, 3 this canon must be 
more recent than these two Synods, and especially must have 
been taken from the canon of Antioch. 

CAN. 39 (37). 

IldvTwv T&V KK\ r r]G iao TLKwv TTpay/udTCov o e7r7O7T09 
T7)V <f>povrlBa teal SioiKetra) avra, 009 eov 
%eivai Se avra) o-fyeTepi^eaOai TL e% CLVT&V 
ra TOV eov ^api^ecrOai el Be 7T&njT$ elev, eTn^oprjyelrct) o>9 
, a\\a /JLTJ Trpotpdcrei TOVTWV ra TT}? 



Omnium negotiorum ecclesiasticorum curam episcopus ha- 
beat, et ea velut Deo contemplante dispenset ; nee ei liceat 
ex his aliquid omnino contingere, aut parentibus propriis qua3 
Dei sunt condonare. Quod si pauperes sunt, tanquam pau- 
peribus subministret, nee eorum occasione Ecclesise negotia 
deprsedetur. 

This canon and the two following are in a measure similar 
to the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth canons of Antioch ; so 
that Drey considers them more recent, and derived from those 
two canons. But see what was said about the tenth canon. 

CAN. 40 (38). 

Oi TrpecrftvTepoi real ol SLCLKOVOI avev yvafit)? TOV eTricrKOTrov 
jATjbev 7riTe\eiTWcrav avros <ydp ecmv 6 TreTrio-Tevfjievos TOV 
\aov TOV Kvpiov, fcal TOV vTrep TCOV ^Irvy/wv CLVTWV \o<yov a 



CAN. (3 9). 

(pavepa Ta iSia TOV ITCIGKOTCOV Trpdy/ActTa, ei ye /cal 
iota e%i, /cal (fravepa TO, Kvpiatca, r iva e^ovcrlav e%y TWV ISlwv 
Te\evTO)v 6 eTT/cr/coTTO?,, oi? BovXeTai, Koi &) 
KOL IJ^TJ Trpofydcrei T&V eKK\r)<jiacrTiK<*)V Trpay/^aTcov 

1 C. 5. 2 C. 20. 3 S. 334 and 406. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 475 







TO, TOV eTTlCTKOTTOV, e OT6 <yVVCUKa Ka TTdaS KKTr)/JieVOV ? 

crvyyevefc rj ai/cerar Sl/ccuov <yap TOVTO irapa Oew Kal avOpco- 
7rot5 TO [JLrjre TTjv EKK\7]criav Jfy/i&H/ TLva viTopeveLv dyvolq TCOV 
TOV eTTtaKOTTov TrpajfjidToov, fjbijre TOV eTcio-Koirov 97 row avTov 
crvyyevels Trpo^dcrei r?}? *EKK\7jcrlas 7rr}fuiw(r0cu ) TJ /cal 



e/jLTriTTTev TOU? avTat Sia^epoz/ra?, /cal TOV avTov 



OdvciTQV 

Presbyter! et diaconi prseter episcopum niMl agere perten- 
tent, nam Domini populus ipsi commissus est, et pro animabus 
eorum hie redditurus est rationem. Sint autem manifestse 
res proprise episcopi (si tamen habet proprias) et manifesto 
dominicse, ut potestatem habeat de propriis moriens episcopus, 
sicut voluerit et quibus voluerit relinquere, nee sub occasione 
ecclesiasticarum remm, quse episcopi sunt, intercidant, fortassis 
enim ant uxorem habet, ant filios aut propinquos aut servos. 
Et justum est hoc apnd Denm et homines, ut nee Ecclesia 
detrimentum patiatur ignoratione rerum pontificis, nee epis- 
copus vel ejus propinqui sub obtentu Ecclesise proscribantur, 
et in causas incidant qui ad eum pertinent, morsque ejus 
injuriis malse famse subjaceat. 

See our remarks on the thirty-ninth canon. 

CAN. 41 (40). 

liricrKOTrov e^ovcrlav %eiv TWV r/)? EKKXrjcrlas 
el <yap ra? Tifilas TWV dv9pa)7ra)v ^rv^a<^ CLVTM 
, TroXXw av fjiaXXov 8eot eTrl TCOV ^prj^drcov evTe\- 
\eo~6ai, wcrre Kara TTJV avTov e^ovariav rraVTa 
rot? 8eoyLtez^ot9 St<z TWV TrpGa/BvTepcov Kal SiaKOVcav 
yelcrOat, yLtera (>6{3ov TOV Seov Kal Travis euXaySe/o.? 
fidveiv Se Kal avTov TWV SeovTcov (ei/ye SeoiTo) ei? ra? dvajKatas 
avTw ^pei o.9 Kal TWV 7n^evovfJbeva)V dSeX<^>a)F, o><? KaTa fjirjo eva 
TpoTrov avTOvs vcrTepeiadaf 6 jap vofjios TOV Seov ^lera^aTO, 
TOU? TW Qvcriaa Trjpia) vTrrjpeTOvvTas IK TOV Ovcriaa Tripiov Tpe- 
<j>ecr6ai eireiTrep ovBe crTpaTi&Tai iroTe lo~lois cxpavlois OTcXa 
KaTa 7ro\e/jila)v eTCifyepovTai,. 

Prsecipimus, ut in potestate sua episcopus Ecclesias res 
habeat. Si enim animse hominum pretiosse illi sunt creditse, 
multo magis oportet eum curam pecuniarum gerere, ita ut 
potestate ejus indigentibus omnia dispensentur per presby- 



476 APPENDIX. 

teros et diaconos, et cum timore omnique sollicitudine mini- 
strentur, ex his autem quibus indiget, si tamen indiget, ad suas 
necessitates et ad peregrine-rum fratrum usus et ipse percipiat, 
ut nihil omnino possit ei deesse. Lex enim Dei prsecipit, ut 
qui altari deserviunt, de altari pascantur ; quia nee miles sti- 
pendiis propriis contra hostes arma sustulit. 
See our remarks on the thirty-ninth canon. 

CAN. 42 (41). . 

) Trpecr/Surepo? rj Bidicovos KV/3oi,$ o^oXafcoz/ KCU 
rj TravcrdaBa) rj /caOaipelcrOco. 

Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus aleae atque ebrietati 
deserviens, aut desinat, aut certe damnetur. 

The Council of Elvira, in its seventy-ninth canon, has a 
similar prohibition of the game of thimbles. As to the diffe 
rent kinds of usury of which the forty-fourth apostolic canon 
speaks, they were all prohibited by the twentieth canon of 
Elvira, the twelfth of Aries, and the seventeenth of Nicaea. 
This and the two following canons should be included in the 
number of the most ancient so-called apostolic canons. Their 
origin is unknown. 1 

CAN. 43 (42). 



rj avaryvtocrrrjs TO. ofjioia Troi&v TJ irav- 
crda dco T) dtpopi^ecrOa), wcravTCOS teal ol \alKoL 

Subdiaconus, lector aut cantor similia faciens, aut desinat, 
aut communione privetur. Similiter etiam laicus. 

Compare the remarks on the forty-second canon. 

- CAN. 44 (43). 

77 irpea^vrepo^ 77 Sid/covo? TOKOVS cnraiTwv rou? 
TJ Travadcrda} ij KaOaipeiaOw. 
Episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus usuras a debitoribus 
exigens, aut desinat, aut certe damnetur. 

Compare the remarks on the forty-second canon. 

CAN. 45 (44). 

r} Trpeo-fivrepos rj SICLKOVOS alpeTiKols crvvv!;d- 
opL^ecrOa) 6 8e KOI eTrerpe^rev aurot? 
evepyijaal TI, KadaipeicrOw. 

1 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 244 L 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANOXS. 477 

Episeopus, presbyter et diaconus, qui cum hsereticis oraverit 
tantummodo, communione privetur ; si vero tanquam clericus 
hortatus eos fuerit agere vel orare, damnetur. 

This canon is merely an application to a particular case of 
general rules given by the apostles, and this application must 
have been made from the first centuries : therefore this canon 
must in its substance be very ancient. 1 Yet Drey 2 believes 
that it- was derived from the ninth, thirty-third, and thirty- 
fourth canons of the Council of Laodicea. 

CAN. 46 (45). 

ETTIO-KOTTOV r) TrpecrjSvrepov aipenrcwv Se^dfjievov ftdTTTiarfjia rj 
Qvaiav tcaOaipeio-Oai TrpoardTTO/jiev T/9 jap GV\JU>U>VY}(JIS TOV 

XplCTTOV 77/305 TOV BeXloX ,* ^ T/<? /U.6/H9 TTICTTOV fJiGTO, aTTlCTTOV , 

Episcopum aut presbyterum hEereticorum suscipientem bap- 
tisma damnari praecipimus. Quce enim conventio Christi ad 
Belial, aut quse pars fideli cum infideli 1 

Drey holds this canon and the one following to be very 
ancient. 3 Dollinger, on the contrary, as we have said, 4 con 
siders it to be more recent. This opinion had before been 
enunciated by Peter de Marca, who argued justly, that if this 
canon had been in existence at the period of the discussion 
upon baptism administered by heretics, that is, about the year 
255, S. Cyprian and Firmilian would not have failed to quote 
it. 5 This canon and the following are taken from the Apos 
tolic Constitutions? 

CAK 47 (46). 

Tj 7Tp(T^VT6pO^ TOV KdT a\r)6ei(lV e^OVTCL 

eav ava>6ev fiaTTTLcrr}, YJ TOV fjLfjio\vo-fjbivov rrapa 
d<T/3a)v lav /mrj ftaTTTicrr), KaOaipeiaOco, to? yeXwv TOV crTavpov 
teal TOV TOV Kvpiov OdvaTOV KOI ftr] SiaKplvaiv iepias TCOV 



Episcopus aut presbyter, si eum qui secundum veritatem 
habuerit baptisma, denuo baptizaverit, aut si pollutum ab 
impiis non baptizaverit, deponatur tanquam deridens crucem 

1 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 253. 2 S. 410. 

3 I.e. S. 260 f. 4 6. 

5 Marca, de Concord, sacerd. et imperil, lib. iii. c. 2, 2-5. 

6 vi. 15. 



478 APPENDIX. 

et mortem Domini, nee sacerdotes a falsis sacerdotibus jure 
discernens. 

See the remarks on the preceding canon. 

CAN. 48 (47). 

Ei rt? Xat/eo? rrjv eavrov yvvaiKa 6K/3d\\a>v erepav \dftr) rj 
Trap aX\ov a7ro\,\vjjLev7]v, d<f>opi%ecr0a). 

Si quis laicus uxorem propriam pellens, alteram vel ab alio 
dimissam duxerit, communione privetur. 

The same rule was given by the eighth and tenth canons 
of Elvira, and by the tenth of Aries. Drey 1 reckons this 
canon among the most ancient. Its source is unknown. 

CAN. 49 (48). 

El Tfc? eVtWoTro? TI Trpeo-fivrepo? Kara rrjv TOV Kvptov Bid- 
V [Jbrj jBaTTTiar) et? Ilarepa teal Tlov Kal ayiov Tlvev^a, aXX! 
rpeis avdp^ovs ^ rpels u/ou? 1} rpels TrapaKXijrovs, tcaOai- 



Si quis episcopus aut presbyter juxta prseceptum Domini 
non baptizaverit in nomine Patris et Pilii et Spiritus sancti, 
sed in tribus sine initio principiis, aut in tribus filiis, aut in 
tribus paracletis, abjiciatur. 

This canon must be reckoned among the most ancient 
canons, and is taken from the Apostolic Constitutions? 

CAN. 50 (49). 

E" Ti? e7r{(7K07ro$ T) 7rpecr{3i>Tpos /jLr] Tpia PaiTrlcr/naTa fitas 
/uvrfcrea)? eVtreXecr?;, aXX ev /SaTmcr/jLa et? TOV Odvarov TOV 
Kvplov SiBofjievov, KaOaipelado) ov jap elirev o KvpiG<$ Eh TOV 
Odvarov JJLOV {BaTrrlcraTe, dXXa HopevOevres /jLaOyreua-aTe Trdvra 
TO, eOvr), /5a7TT/fo^Te? avrovs et? TO ovojjia TOV JTarpo? /cat TOV 
Tlov Kal TOV d<ylov Tivev^curo^ 

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter non trinam mersionem 
unius mysterii celebret, sed semel mergat in baptismate, quod 
dari videtur in Domini morte, deponatur. Non enim dixit 
nobis Dominus : In morte mea baptizate ; sed : Euntes docete 
crimes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Eilii et 
Spiritus sancti. 

i S. 251. 

9 Yi. 11, 26. Cf. Drey, I.e. 3. 262 and 404. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 479 

This canon is among the most recent of the collection. 1 
It is not known from what source it was derived. 

Here the Latin translation made by Dionysius the Less 
ends. From the fifty-first canon we give the translation by 
Cotelerius. 

OAK 51 (50). 

EL TI? eViVtfOTro? rj TrpecrfivTepos TJ SLCLKOVOS ^ oX&>? TOV 
KaTa\6yov TOV lepaTiKov jdfjLcov Kal Kpewv Kal oivov ov $L 
acrfcrjcriv aXXa $ia {SSeXvpiav aTre ^erat, 7Ti\a6o/jLevos on TrdvTa 
Ka\a \iav, Kal on apcrev Kal Ofj\v eiroLTjcrev 6 0eo9 TOV dv0po)7rov, 
7][JLMV ca/3aXXet TV)V &7]fj,iovpyiav, rj BiopOovaOa) rj 
Kal TV)? ^EtKK\7]uia^ a7ro/3aX/Ve<j$a> cocraurco? Kal 
Xat /co?. 

Si quis episcopus aiit presbyter aut diaconus, aut omnino 
ex numero elericonun, a nuptiis et carne et vino non propter 
exercitationem, verum propter detestationem abstinuerit, obli- 
tus qiiod omnia sunt valde bona, et quod masculum et femi- 
nam Deus fecit hominem, sed blasphemans accusaverit crea- 
tionem, vel corrigatur, vel deponatur, atque ex Ecclesia 
ejiciatur. Itidem et laicus. 

This canon is evidently directed against the Gnostics and 
Manichseans, who, in accordance with their dualistic theory, 
declare matter to be satanic. Therefore it may be said to be 
very ancient, that is, from the second or third century : it is 
very similar to the ordinances in the Apostolic Constitutions? 

CAN. 52 (51). 

EL ri? eViWoTro? rj irpCfffivTepos TOV eTriaTpefyovTa aTro 
afiaprta? ov TrpoaBe^erat, aX-X aTro/SaXXerat, KaBaipeicrOdi) OTL 

\V77el Xpio~Tov TOV 6L7rovTa Xapa ryiveTCil ev ovpavu) eVt evl 



Si quis episcopus aut presbyter eum, qui se convertit a 
peccato, non receperit sed ejecerit, deponatur, quia contristat 
Christum dicentem : Gaudium oritur in ccelo super uno pec- 
catore pcenitentiam agente. 

This canon in substance belongs to a period before the end 
of the third century, and is directed against the severity of 

1 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 361 ff. 

8 Constit. Apostol 1. vi. c. 8, 10, 26. Of. Drey, I.e. S. 281 and 404. 



480 APPENDIX. 

the Montanists and Novatians. It is taken from the Apos 
tolic Constitutions} 

CAN. 53 (52). 

Tt? eTT/ovcoTro? 57 7rpecr(BvTpQ<$ r) Sid/covos ev rafc 
eoprcov ov /jLeTa\a/JL/3dveL /cpe&v Kal oivov, 
teal ov &i? dcrfcrjcnV) /cadaipeicrda) &>? KeKavT^piaa/jLevo^ Tr]v 
(rvvelBrjcnv, /cal a mo? (7/cav^d\ov TroAAofc <yiv6fj,evos. 

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus in diebus festis 
non sumit carnem aut vinum, deponatur, ut qui cauteriatam 
habet suam conscientiam, multisque sit causa scandali. 

This canon, like the fifty-first, is aimed against the Gnostic 
and Manichsean errors, and probably is of the same antiquity. 
It was also taken from the Apostolic Constitutions. 2 

CAN. 54 (53). 

E J/ -v V * -v J /I / /I 1 I C//l 

6 T? KMjpiKos ev ATaTT^Aetft) (pwpaueLr] ecruiwv^ a(popi^eo uci) ) 

Trapej; rov ev 7ravSo%etq) ev 6Sa) St dvdjK7]v Kara\vcravTO^ . 

Si quis clericus in caupona comedens deprehensus fuerit, 
segregetur, prseterquam si ex necessitate de via divertat ad 
hospitium. 

This canon is very ancient, and of unknown origin. 3 

CAN. 55 (54). 

E" Tt? KKvjpiKos vjBpL^eL TOV GTrKT/coTTOv, fcauaipei(70ci) Ap- 
XpvTa yap TOV \aov aov ov/c epe1<; /ca/cw?. 

Si quis clericus episcopum contumelia affecerit injuste, de- 
ponatur ; ait enim Scriptura : Principi populi tui non male- 
dices. 

Drey supposes* that this canon and the one following are 
not ancient : 1st, because in the primitive Church the clergy 
would not have behaved so outrageously against a bishop ; 
and 2d, because the lower clergy, whom the fifty-sixth canon 
mentions, were not known in the primitive Church, bishops, 
priests, and deacons not being distinguished. The source of 
the canon is unknown. 

1 Constit. Apostol. 2, 12 ff. Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 277 and 404. 

2 Constit. Apostol v. 20. Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 285 and 
8 Cf. Drey, S. 245. 

4 S. 299. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 481 

CAN. 56 (55). 



J Bid/covov, d( 

Si quis clericus presbyterum vel diaconum injuria affecerit, 
segregetur. 

See the remarks on the preceding canon. 

CAN. 57 (56). 

El T9 [KXiypi/cos] ^(co\a)p rj fccocfibv rj rv(p\bv 
i JT7r\ r]<yfJLevov ^Xeuaet, d<f>opi%ecr6a) a>cravTa>5 KOI 

Si quis clericus mutilatum, vel surdum aut mutum, vel 
caecum aut pedibus debilem irriserit, segregetur. Item et 
laicus. 

The coarseness alluded to in this canon, as also in the 
fifty-fifth, proves that it was formed at a recent period. 1 

CAN. 58 (57). 

ETTicTKO Tros rj Trpecrfivrepos d/jieX&v rov K\rfpov rj TOV \aov 
/cal fj^r) TraiSevcov avrovs TTJV evcrefteiav, d<j>opiea6(O) etrifjievcov 
Be rfj paOv/Jila tca6aipeio-9a). 

Episcopus aut presbyter clerum vel populum negligens, 
nee eos docens pietatem, segregetur ; si autem in socordia per- 
severet, deponatur. 

This canon seems to have been formed towards the middle 
of the fourth century, at a time when the clergy, and espe 
cially the bishops, often left their churches, and betook them 
selves frequently to the city where the Emperor resided. 2 

CAN. 59 (58). 

E i T5 eVtV/COTTO? 7J 7Tp<rl3vTp6$ TfZ/09 TCOV 

oz/ro? fjir) eiri xpprj yel TO, Seovra, dfopi^eo dco eirifAevcov Be icaOai- 
petcrOa), to? (frovevcras TOV dBe\(j)oi> avrov. 

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter, cum aliquis clericorum 
inopia laborat, ei non suppeditet necessaria, segregetur ; quod 
si perseveret, deponatur, ut occidens fratrem suum. 

We may repeat here what was said about the canons 39-41, 
to which the present canon is related. Drey 3 considers it to 
be more recent than the somewhat similar twenty-fifth canon 
of the Synod of Antioch of the year 341. 

1 Drey, I.e. S. 300. 2 Drey, I.e. S. 300 ff. 3 S. 302 ff. 

2 H 



482 APPENDIX. 

CAN. 60 (59). 

Eil Ti9 ra fyevSeTCvypafya T&V do-e(3a)V j3i{3\ta &>9 ayta liri 
T?79 EKfiKtiaias Syfjiocrievei eVt \v^r) TOV \aov Kal TOV K\rjpov, 
/cadcupeicrOa). 

Si quis falso inscriptos impiorum libros, tanquam sacros in 
Ecclesia divulgarit, ad perniciem populi et cleri, deponatur. 

This canon belongs in substance to the second century of 
the Christian era. It bears a certain similarity to the Apos 
tolic Constitutions ; l but, according to Drey, 2 it must have 
been composed much later, as he concludes from the expres 
sions "to spread in the Church," and " people and clergy," which 
entered into ecclesiastical language at a later period. 

; CAN. 61 (60). 

T9 Karrjyopia y&VQTOl Kara TTLCTTOV iropvelas rj /zot^e/a? rj 

/cal eX.e^Oeir], et? K\rjpov 



) dyeadco. 

Si qua fiat accusatio contra fidelem, fornicationis vel adul- 
terii, vel alterius cujusdam facti prohibiti, et convictus fuerit, 
is non provehatur ad clerum. 

This canon belongs to the third century. 3 A similar rule 
was made in the thirtieth and seventy-sixth canons of Elvira, 
in the ninth of Neoceesarea, and in the ninth and tenth of 

j^icsea. The source of this canon is unknown. 



CAN. 62 (61). 

EL T9 K\r)piKo<s Sia (>6{3ov dv9pa)7rwov lovSatov ^ "EXXyvos 
TI aiperiKov dpvrjcrrjTai,, el ^ev ovofjia XpicrTov, a7ro/3aXXecr^ft), el 
Se /cal TO ovofjia TOV /cXTjpLKOv, fcadaipeiaOco fjieTavoijcras Se a>9 



Si quis clericus propter metum humanum Judsei vel gen- 
tilis vel hseretici negaverit, siquidem nomen Christi, segre- 
getur ; si vero nomen clerici, deponatur ; si autem poeniten- 
tiam egerit, ut laicus recipiatur. 

Drey 4 thinks that the persecutions of the Christians at the 
commencement of the fourth century, under the Emperors 
Diocletian, Galerius, Maximin, and Licinius, gave occasion for 
this canon, which is from an unknown source. 

^i. 16. 2 I.e. S. 281. 

3 Cf. Drey, Ic. S. 243. 4 I.e. S. 316. 



HE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 483 



T 



CAN. 63 (62). 

EL T? eTTLCTKOTros ij TrpecrfiiJTepos TJ SICLKOVOS ^ oXw? rov tcara- 
\6yov rov leparifcov ^ayy fcpea ev ai^ari ^UY^S avrov rj drjpid- 
\WTQV r) Ourjcrij^alov^ KaQaipeiaOw rovro yap 6 VOJJLOS asirelirev. 
El Be \aifcos eirj, a<fiopL%ecr0a). 

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter ant diaconus, ant omnino 
ex catalogo clericorum, manducaverit carnem in sanguine 
animse ejns, vel captnm a bestia, vel morticinium, deponatur ; 
id enim lex qnoqne interdixit. Qnod si laicns sit, segregetur. 

This canon must be classed among the most ancient of the 
collection. 1 

CAN. 64 (63). 

EL Ti? KKypiKOS r) Xai /co? elcre\@r) et? crvvaytoyrjv *Iov$ala)v rj 
alperiKwv crvvev^acrQai, KaOaipeiaQco fcal a^opL^ecrOa). 

Si quis clericns vel laicus ingressus fuerit synagogam Jndae- 
orum vel hsereticorum ad orandurn, ille deponatnr, hie segre 
getur. 

The same remark applies to this as to the sixty-third canon. 
This canon was formed from the Apostolic Constitutions? 

CAN. 65 (64). 

EL T? K\rjpLKo^ ev pa-Xtf TW& Kpovcras KOL OTTO rov ez/o? 
Kpova-fjLaTQS aTTOKreivei, KaOaLpelcrdco &LO, rr]V TrpoTrereLav avTOV 
el Se \a ifco<> eii], d<f>opL%ecr6a). 

Si quis clericus in contentione aliquem ferierit, atque ex 
ictu occiderit, deponatur ob suam prsecipitantiam ; laicus vero 
segregetur. 

It was not thought necessary to make such a law as this 
during the ancient Church : it was only subsequently, in the 
midst of the contentions excited by Arianism, that it became 
indispensable that such acts of brutality should be condemned. 
The origin of this canon is unknown, 3 We must remark, 
further, that according to the order followed in the apostolic 
canons, where they are placed after the Apostolic Constitutions 
(as in Cotelerius, Galland, Drey), the present canon follows the 
sixty-sixth, so that they change places. We prefer to follow 

1 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 249. 

2 Constit. Apostol. ii. 61. Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 254 and 404. 

3 See above, C. 28 j and Drey, I.e. S. 341 ff. 



484 APPENDIX. 

the order which is observed in the ancient collections of canons 
and of councils. 

CAN. 66 (65). 

t Tt9 K\7)piKo<; evpeOrj Tr\v /cvpiaKrjv rj/jbepav vrjcrTevav rj TO 
7r\r]v rov 6^0? jAovov, KaOcupelaOw el Be 



Si quis clericus inventus fuerit die dominica vel sabbato, 
praeter unum solum, jejunans, deponatur ; si fuerit laicus, 
segregetur. 

In some countries for instance in Home, and also in Spain 
Saturday was a fast-day ; but in other countries this fast was 
not observed/ and this difference is very ancient. The custom 
of fasting on Sunday is to be met with only among those 
sects who professed a sort of Gnostic dualism, for instance, 
the Marcionites. It may therefore be said that this canon 
belongs to the most ancient of the collection, and that it is 
formed from the Apostolic Constitutions? 

. CAN. 67 (66). . . 

El Tt<? TTdpOivov dfJLvr)(TT6VTOV ^idda^vo^ %(,) dfpopL^eo-Oo) 
i^zivai e avra) erepav Kapftaveiv a/VA, etCfforjVj tjv yperlcraTO, 






KUV 



Si quis virginem non desponsatam vi illata teneat, segre- 
getur, nee aliam ducat, sed hanc, quam sic elegit, retineat, 
etiamsi paupercula fuerit. 

The eleventh canon of Ancyra had before condemned the 
rape of girls, but it concerned only those girls who were be 
trothed, as also did S. Basil the Great, in the twenty-second 
chapter of his second canonical letter to Amphilochius. 3 As, in 
point of severity, this canon holds the middle course between 
the ancient ordinances of Ancyra and of S. Basil, and the 
more recent rules of the Council of Chalcedon, 4 Drey con 
cludes 5 that its origin must be referred to the period between 
these Councils of Ancyra and Chalcedon, and it must there 
fore be considered as among the most recent of the collection. 

1 See above, the explanation of the canons of the Synod of Elvira ; and Drey, 
I.e. S. 285. 

2 v. 20. Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 283 ff. and 404, where it is numbered 65. 

3 Opp. iii. 293, ed. Bened. 4 C. 27. . 5 I.e. S. 349. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 485 

He goes so far as to think 1 that we should not be wrong in 
regarding it as an imitation of the twenty-second canon of 
Chalcedon. 

CAN. 68 (67). 

Ei T9 eTrtcrKOTros 77 Trpecrfivrepos 77 Sid/covo? Sevrepav yeipo- 
Toviav Several, irapd TIVQS, Ka6aipeicr6a) fcal cturo9 fcal 6 yeipo- 
ei fjLtjye apa avar&lif, ort, Trapa cuperi/c&v eyei, TT)Z> 

\ \ \/% / /*\ x* / \ 

rou9 <yap Trapa TOIV TOIOVTWV paTmauevra^ rj yeipo- 

OVT6 TTiCTTOl 9 OVTG K\7]plKOV$ elvai SwaTOV. 

Si quis episcopus vel presbyter aut diaconus secundam 
ordinationem acceperit ab aliquo, deponatur et ipse, et qui 
eum ordinavit, nisi ostendat ab hsereticis ordinationem se 
habere ; a talibus enim baptizati et ordinati neque fideles 
neque clerici esse possunt. 

The same remark applies to this as to the forty-sixth 
canon. 2 Its origin is not known. 

CAN. 69 (68). 

t rt9 eTTicrKOTro^ T] Trpea(3vTepo<$ 77 SICLKOVOS rj dvayvuKTTr)? 77 
Trjv aytav TecraapaKocrrrfV TOU irdcry^a rj rerpdSa r) 
ov vricnevo^ KaOaipelcrOw, e/ero9 el firj Si, aadiveiav 

Si quis episcopus aut presbyter aut diaconus aut lector aut 
cantor saiictam Quadragesimam non jejunat, aut quartam sex- 
tamque feriam, deponatur, nisi infirmitate corporis impediatur ; 
laicus vero segregetur. 

The custom of fasting before Easter, during Lent, is very 
ancient. S. Irenaeus even believes that it proceeded from the 
apostles. Therefore Drey considers this canon to be one of 
the most ancient, and that it may be traced back to about the 
third century. 3 In another passage, 4 Drey gives it as his 
opinion that this canon and the one following were taken 
from the spurious Epistle of S. Ignatius to the Philippians. 5 

CAN. 70 (69). 

EL T9 e7r/0vco7ro9 77 Trpecr(BvTpo<5 r) SICLKOVOS 77 6 A&>9 TOV 

7 (jvveop- 



1 S. 412. 2 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 263. 3 Drey, I.e. S. 250. 

4 S. 412. 6 C. 13 and 14. 



486 APPENDIX. 



avruv ?j Se%oiTO Trap avT&v TO, r^? ec/m]? ^evia, olov 
T; Ti TOIOVTOV, KaOaipeio-Ow el Be Xoi /co?, dfapi^ecrOa). 

Si quis episcopus aut alius clericus cum Judseis jejunet, vel 
dies festos agat, aut festorum munera ab ipsis aecipiat, veluti 
azyma hisque similia, deponatur ; si laicus hsec fecerit, segre- 
getttr. 

According to Drey, 1 this canon and the one following date 
from the end of the third or the middle of the fourth cen 
tury. The Synod of Elvira had before recommended, in its 
forty-ninth and fiftieth canons, that too intimate connections 
with Jews should be avoided. Drey 2 is, however, of opinion 
that this canon and the one following were derived from the 
thirty -seventh, thirty -eighth, and thirty -ninth canons of 
Laodicea. 

- CAN. 71 (70). . 

i T5 XpMTTiavbs G\aiov aTTevey/crj et? iepa eOvwv rj 
*Iov$ata)v ev rat? coprals 



Si quis christianus ad templa Gentilium aut ad synagogas 
Judseorum oleum deferat, vel in istorum festis lucernas accen- 
dat, segregetur. 

See the comments on the preceding canon. The Council 
of Elvira had before made several rules for preventing Chris 
tians from communicating in sacris with pagans. 3 

CAN. 72 (71). 

rj \alicos CLTTO 
) d<j)opi%eo-0a) \_Kal TO e 
ov eKa/Sev]. 

Clericus aut laicus ceram aut oleum e sancta ecclesia aufe- 
rens, segregetur, ultraque ablatum quintain partem restituat. 

The robbery here spoken of shows that this canon was 
formed in corrupt times : it must therefore be reckoned among 
the least ancient, and is of unknown origin. 4 

CAN. 73 (72). 

^Kevo? xpvtro&v fcal dpyvpovv dyiaaOev r) oOovyv fjLTjBels en 
oiKeiav ^prjcriv crfaTepi^ecrQco TrapdvofJLOV yap 



1 I.e. S. 287. 2 S. 410. 3 C. 2-4 and 55-57. 4 Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 345 



r 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 487 

Vasa argentea aureave, necnon linteamina Deo consecrata 
nemo deinceps in proprios usus vertat, nefas enim est. De- 
prefrensus in eo segregatione multetur. 

What this canon says is entirely in harmony with the 
views and customs of the ancient Church. It supposes, indeed, 
an opulence which the churches hardly possessed in the first 
ages : it is proved, however, that from the third century 
several churches were in possession of a considerable number 
of vessels of gold and silver. "We may therefore trace this 
seventy-third canon back as far as the second half of the third 
century. Drey, 1 however, holds it to be more recent ; it is of 
unknown origin. 

CAN. 74 (73). 

ETTLCTKOTTOV KaTr)<yopr)devra iiri TLVL irapa a^ioTT icrrwv avOpco- 
, KakeiaOat, CLVTOV avafyiccuov viro T&V eino KOTrwi KCLV fj,ev 

rjcrr) KOI 6/40X0777077 r) e\ey^06L7j, opiC^aQai TO 
el Se Ka\ovfj,evo<; pr) vTrcucovcroi,, Ka\i<r0co ical Sevrepov, a 

ZTT avrov Svo ITTKJKQTTWV eav 5e /cal ovrco /carac^po- 
jj,r) airavTrjcrr}, r) avvo^os ajrocfiaivecrdco Karf avrov ra 

, OTTO)? JJ/T] $o%r) rcepSaiveiv (j)v<yo$iKO)V. 
Episcopum ab hominibus christianis et fide dignis de 
crimine accusatum in jus vocent episcopi. Si vocationi paruerit 
responderitque, fueritque convictus, pcena decernatur ; si vero 
vocatus haud paruerit, missis ad eum duobus episcopis iterum 
vocetur ; si ne sic quidem paruerit, duo rursus ad eum missi 
tertio vocent episcopi. Si hanc quoque missionem aspernatus 
non venerit, pronuneiet contra eum synodus qus& videbuntur, 
ne ex judicii detrectatione lucrum facere videatur. 

This canon and the one following are certainly ancient in 
some parts ; but they are undoubtedly subsequent to the 
Council of Nicsea. Drey 2 supposes that this canon was 
formed in compliance with what the Synod of Chalcedon 
decreed against Dioscurus. See our remarks at the com 
mencement of the Appendix. 

CAN. 75 (74). 

fiapTvplav T^V KCLT eTTLCTKOTrov alperiKov 



1 Lc. S. 306. 

2 l.c. S. 335 ff. and 412. 



488 APPENDIX. 



, a\\a jurjBe TUG-TOW eva fiovov eVl crro^aro? yap Buo rj 
rpiwv fjiaprvpajv crradijo-erai TTCLV prjjj,a. 

Ad testimonium contra episcopum dicendum nee hsereticum 
hominem admittite, nee etiam fidelem unicum ; ait enim lex : 
In ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum. 

See the comments on the preceding canon. 

CAN. 76 (75). 

OTI ov %prj eTricrKOTrov rw aSe/Vc/xw 77 vlw 77 erepfo crvyyevei 
XapL%cr0ai Trader dv6pa)7rtvw f ov jap TTJV rov Qeov \EKK\,7)(riav 
VTTO KKrjpovojjLOV^ b$ei\ei TiQevai* el Se rts TOVTO Troirjcrei) a/tvpo<s 
fjievero) 77 ^eiporovia^ auro? Be eTTCTLfjidcrOco d<j>o pier JAW. 

Episcopum fratri suo, aut filio vel alteri propinquo episco- 
patum largiri, et quos ipse vult, ordinare non decet ; sequum 
enim non est, ut Dei dona humano affectu divendantur, et 
Ecclesia Christi, episcopatusque hsereditatum jura sequatur. 
Si quis ita fecerit, ejus quidem ordinatio sit irrita, ipse vero 
segregationis ferat pcenam. 

The twenty-third canon of the Synod of Antioch, in 341, 
makes a rule almost similar to this in the main. Therefore 
Drey 1 believes that the apostolic canon was formed from that 
of Antioch. 
,, . , / CAN. 77 (76). 

i rt? dvaTnjpos TJ TOV o<p0a\fJLOV 77 TO crtceXo? 77677X777/^6^05, 
Be ecrrtv, eVto-^OTro? yivecr6a> ov yap \a){3?) o-coyttaro? avrov 



Si quis fuerit vel oculo laesus vel crure debilis, eseteroquin 
dignus, qui fiat episcopus, fiat ; non enim vitium corporis 
polluit, sed animi. 

The canons 77-79 inclusive belong to the first three cen 
turies of the Church. Their origin is unknown. 2 

CAN. 78 (77). 

\ A \ V 

Ce COV KCLl TUfflAO? 

-v -v > f/ V \ 1 

?, aAA iva fjur] ra e, 
Surdus vero, mutus aut csecus ne fiat episcopus, non quod 
pollutus sit, sed ne impediantur ecclesiastica. 

1 I.e. S. 360 ff. and 406. 
2 Drej% I.e. S. 264 ff. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 489 



CAN. 79 (78). 

Edv TIS Saifjiova $, KK7]nco^ firj yivea-0a), c\\a fjLrjbe TO?? 



o-vvev^eadco KaOapicrOels &e Trpoa-Be^eada) /cal, eav rj 



Dsemonem qui habet, clericus non sit, nee etiam cum 
fidelibus oret. Eniundatus autem recipiatur, et si dignus 
habeatur, clericus existat. 

This canon may have been formed from the Apostolic Con 
stitutions. 1 

CAN. 80 (79). 

Tbv e eOviKov /3lov TrpoueXOovra /cal (BaTTTicrOevTa rf e/c 
<j)av\rjs Siaycciyijs ov SIKCUOV ecrri TrapavriKa Trpo^eLpL^ecrdai 
eTTicrKOTrov aSifcov yap rbv firjBe TrpoTreipav ^ni^&i^a^vov erepcov 
elvai, SiSd(7Ka\ov el JJLIJTTOV Kara Oeiav %dpiv TOVTO <yiveTat,. 

Qui ex gentibus, aut post vitam non laudabiliter actam per 
baptismum ad ecclesiam accessit, hunc non decet mox prove- 
here ad episcopatum ; iniquum enim est, aliorum existere 
doctorem, qui probationem non dederit, nisi forte divino id 
munere contingat. 

S. Paul gives a similar rule. 2 Cf. Drey, 3 who considers it 4 
to be an imitation of the second canon of Mcsea. 

CAN. 81 (80). 

EtTTO/JLev, on ov %p}j eTricrKOirov rj Trpecr/SvTepov icaOievai 
eavrbv et9 Brj/uLoo-tas StotAT^crei?, d\\a TrpoaevKcupelv rais efCKXrj- 
^petals rj TreiOea-Ow ovv TOVTO /JLTJ Troielv rj KaOai- 
<yap Bvvarac Sval /cvpiois Sov\eveiv, Kara TTJV 



Diximus non oportere, ut episcopus in publicas admini- 
strationes sese demittat, sed Ecclesise utilitatibus vacet. Aut 
igitur persuadeatur hoc non facere, aut deponatur. Kemo 
enim potest duobus dominis servire, juxta Domini admoni- 
tionem. 

So long as heathenism predominated, it was exceedingly 
dangerous for Christians to accept public offices, because they 
obliged those who filled them to communicate often in sacris 
with pagans. See (sec. 1 2) the canons of Elvira, and the com- 

1 viii. 32. Cf. Drey, I.e. S. 403. 2 1 Tim. iii. 6, 2 sqq., and Tit. i. 6. 

3 S. 243. 4 S. 410. 



490 APPENDIX. 

ments accompanying them. At this period, however, it was 
only the laity who competed for public offices : among the 
bishops, Paul of Sainosata was the first known example of 
this kind. Such cases increased when, under Constantine 
the Great and his successors, Christianity gained more and 
more the upper hand ; and it became important to forbid 
bishops to accept civil employment by a special ordinance. 
Drey 1 considers this canon as an abridgment of the third 
canon of Chalceclon. 

CAN. 82 (81). 

et9 /c\fjpov 7rpo%eipieo 6ai, avev TT}<? TWV 
dvaTpOTryv TO TOLOVTO ep^d^eTat el Be vrore /cal 
o ot/eeT/79 Trpo? ^eipoToviav fiaOfjbovj olos /cat 6 
Ovrjcrifjios e(fravr}j /cal o wyvcDprfo ovo iv ol SeaTroTat, /cal eXevdepco- 
CTOVCTL /cal TOV OLKOV eavT&v e^aTrocrTe Xovcri, <yivea6a). 

Servos invitis dominis ad clerum promoveri non permitti- 
mus, ne molestia possessoribus fiat, hoc namque domos evertit. 
Si quando vero servus dignus videtur, ut ad ordinationem. 
ascendat, quemadmodum visus est Onesimus noster, et con- 
sentit dominus ac manumittit, suique juris facit, fiat clericus. 

We are not in a position to fix the antiquity and origin of 
this canon. 

CAN. 83 (82). 
ETTicr/coTTOs 7) 7rpe(7BvTpo^ T) Sid/covos <7TpaTia Gyo Xdtwv 

I t I It /v - 1 

Kai /3ouXoft^o9 d/Jic^oTepa /caTe^etVy ^(DfjLaiKrjv dpx*)v /cal 
iepaTi/crjv SioLKTjcriv, KaOaipeiaOw TO- <yap TOV Kaicrapos Kaicrapi, 

/cal TO, TOV eov TO> dew. 

t t 

Episcopus vel presbyter vel diaconus militia? dans operam, 
et utraque volens retinere, Eomanum magistratum et sacer- 
dotalem administrationem, deponatur. Quas enim sunt Ca3saris 
Caasari, et quse sunt Dei Deo. 

Drey 2 considers this canon to have been formed from, the 
seventh of the fourth (Ecumenical Council, and consequently 
that it is one of the most recent of the collection. See, in 
opposition to his opinion, our remarks at the beginning of 
this Appendix. 

1 I.e. S. 246 and 411. 
9 S. 249 and 411. 



THE SO-CALLED APOSTOLIC CANONS. 491 

CAN. 84 (83). 

{3a(7i\ea rj dpxpVTa, rifjiayplav TIVVVTW KOI el 
fjiev /tXijpiKOS) KaOaipelaOcD, el Be XatVeo?, a(j)opi%ecr0a>. 

Quicunque commiserit aliquid contra jus ad versus Csesarem 
aut magistratum, puniatur ; et quidem si clericus fuerit, de- 
ponatur ; si laicus, segregetur. 

It might be thought that this canon was formed in a time 
of persecution, when it could be more easily understood that 
Christians should despise the Emperors ; but nevertheless it 
was not so. This canon fits in much better to the time of 
the Arian struggle, when such offences against the Emperors 
were much more abundant. The origin of the canon is 
unknown. 1 

CAN. 85 (84). 

"EcrTQ) Tracrtv VJMV K\7]piKols leal XatVcot? /3ij3\ia cre^da/JLia 
Kal ayia, TTJS f^ev TraXaia? BidO^/cys Mcovcrea)? Trevre, Tevecris, 
"JSfo8o?, AeviTiKov, Api6fj,ol, AevTepovo/Mov Irja-ov vlov Navfj 
ev, PovO ev, Ba(7i\eicov Tecrcrapa, TlapcLkeiTro^evwv TOV j3i{3\LOV 
TCOV rj^epwv Suo, J Eo~6r]p ev, Ma^a^atKwv rpta, Ja>/3 ez^, 
ev, 2o\ofjL)VTOs rpia, Hapoipiat,, EK/c\7)criacrTr)S, 

Hpo^jwv Se/caSvo ev, Hcra lov ev, lepepiov ev, 
ev, Aavir^ ev e^coOev Be Trpo&io-TopeicrOa) vfuv, fj,av~ 
Odveiv vfjicov Tot/9 veovs rrjv crotylav TOV iroKvjJLaOov^ ^eipd^. 
H/jLerepa Be, TOVT ean rfjs Kawris Bia07)Kr)<;, Evayye\ia reo-aapa, 
MarOalov, Mdp/cov, Aovita, Iwdvvow TLav\ov eVto-roXat Be/ca- 
Tecra-apes, Ilerpov eTTto-roXat Bvo, Iwdvvov rpels, laKcioflov pia, 
lovBa fila, KXrj/jievTOS eiriaToXal Bvo /cal at Biarayal v[uv rot? 
Si? e/jiov KXq/JievTOS ev OKTO) ^t/3Xtot? irpocrTre^wvr]- 
t, a? ov Bel Bi<jfjiO(7ieveiv eirl Trdvrcov Bia ra ev aurat? 

a, Kal al IIpdj;i$ rj/JL&v TWV aTrocrToXwi/. 
Sint autem vobis omnibus, cum clericis turn laicis, libri 
venerabiles et sancti : veteris quidem testamenti, Moysis 
quinque, -Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuterono- 
mium ; Jesu filii Navae unus ; Judicum unus, Euth unus ; 
Eegnorum quatuor, Paralipomenon libri dierum duo ; Esdrse 
duo ; Esther unus ; Judith unus ; Maehabseorum tres ; Hiobi 
unus ; Psalmi centum quinquaginta ; Salomonis libri tres, 
Proverbia, Ecclesiastes, Canticum canticorum ; Prophetse sex- 

i Cf. Drey, Lc. S. 347. 



492 APPENDIX. 

decim ; praater hos nominetur vobis etiam Sapientia multiscii 
Sirachi, quam adolescentes vestri discant. ISTostri autem, id 
est libri novi testament! : Evangelia quatuor, Matthsei, Marci, 
Lucae, Joannis ; Pauli epistolae quatuordecim ; Petri duae ; 
Joannis tres ; Jacobi una ; Judse una ; dementis epistolae 
dues; et Constitutions vobis episcopis per me Clementem 
octo libris nuncupatae, quas non oportet inter omnes divul- 
gare, ob mystica quse in eis stint, et Acta nostra apostolorum. 
This is probably the least ancient canon in. the whole col 
lection. 1 In most of the Greek manuscripts the apostolic 
canons are followed by a short epilogue, containing an ex 
hortation addressed to the bishops, recommending them to 
observe these canons. It ends with a prayer, which is 
printed with the apostolic canons in Cotelerius, 2 Galland/ 
Mansi, 4 Ueltzen/ and also in Latin in Drey. 6 

1 Cf. Drey, Ic. S. 370. 2 Patr. Apost. i. 454. 

3 BlU. PP. iii. 248. * Vol. i. p. 47. 

6 Constit. Apost. p. 253 sq. 6 I.e. S. 235. 



INDEX. 



ACESTUS, Novatian Bishop of Con 
stantinople, at the Synod of Nicaea, 
295, 413. 

Achaia, synod in, 92. 

Adultery, ecclesiastical punishment 
of, 141, 157, 164, 166, 219 ; of wo 
men with clerics, 165, 223 ; with 
a Jewess or heathen woman, 170 ; 
with the previous knowledge of the 
husband, 167, 219 ; connected with 
child-murder, whether it breaks 
the marriage bond, 164, 167, 220 ; 
of a cleric, 223. 

^Elia (see Jerusalem). 

Agapse, 213. 

Age, canonical, for a priest, 228. 

Agrippinus, Bishop of Carthage, 86, 
92, 104, 106. 

Alexander, made Bishop of Alexan 
dria, 242 ; opposes Arius, 247 ; his 
two letters against Arius, 248, 249 ; 
a third letter of his, 250 ; his doc 
trine, 249. 

Alexandria, synods at, on account of 
Origen, 87 ; on account of Meletius, 
130; Arius, 247, 248; the Alex 
andrian Church before Arius, did 
not hold Arian doctrine, 236 ; the 
patriarchal rights of, confirmed at 
Nicsea, 389. 

Anatolius, his Easter canon, 320. 

Anchialus, synod at, 78. 

Ancyra, synod at (314), 199 ; canons 
of, 201. 

Antioch, three synods at, on account 
of Paul of Samosata, 118 ff . ; pre 
tended letter of third synod, 120 ; 
relation of the school of, to the doc 
trine of the Logos, 237 ; the patri 
archal rights of, confirmed at Nicsea, 
389. 

Apollinaris, of Hierapolis, on the 
Easter question, 310. 

Apostasy, and return to the Church, 



146, 157, 195, 196; treatment of 
apostates in sickness, 195, 196. 
(Of. Dying.) 

Apostolic canons, their antiquity, 107, 
449 ; their publication, 449 ; their 
value, 450 ; their sources, 454 ; edi 
tions of them, 457. 

Apostolic Council, 77. 

Appeals, to the Emperor, 178, 180, 
197 ; to the Pope, 356. 

Arabia, heretics in, 91 ; synods there, 
91. 

Arians, measures of the Emperor 
Constantine against, after their 
condemnation at Nicsea, 295, 297. 

Arianism whether, before the time 
of Arius, his opinions were taught 
in Alexandria, 236 ; whether those 
opinions were held in the ancient 
Church, before Nicsea, 231. (Cf. 
Nicsea, Arius.) 

Arius, his mental tendencies, 239 ; 
his relation to Philo, 240 ; the Arian 
and Gnostic Demiurge, 241 ; time 
and place favourable for the propa 
gation of Arianism, 239, 241 ; per 
sonal history of Arius, 241 ; opposes 
his bishop, 243, 245 ; his doctrine, 
243, 249, 251, 254 ; denies that 
Christ had a human rational soul, 
238 ; gains friends and followers, 
246, 277 ; leaves Alexandria, 252 ; 
his letters, 252; his Thalia, 254, 
257 ; returns to Alexandria, 259 ; 
is at Nicsea, 277 ; what bishops at 
Nicsea were on his side, 277 ; he is 
condemned and exiled, 295, 297. 

Aries, first synod there, 180 ; was a 
Western General Synod, 1.82; its 
acts, 183 ; its canons, 184 ; its de 
cision respecting Easter, 321. 

Arsinoe, synod at, 117. 

Art in churches forbidden by the 
Synod of Elvira, 151. 



493 



494 



INDEX. 



Asiatic synods on account of Noetus, 
92. 

Athanasius, his youth, 273 ; his in 
fluence at Nicsea, 273, 274, 278. 

Audians, 334. 

Aurelian, the Homan emperor, de 
cides against Paul of Samosata, 
125. 

BAPTISM, to be administered to chil 
dren soon after birth, 97 ; laymen, 
not bigamists, may baptize in case 
of need, 152 ; baptism of sick, and 
in articulo mortis, 142, 152, 187 ; of 
catechumens after two years pro 
bation, 155 ; deacons may baptize, 
170 ; women with child to be bap 
tized at once, 226 ; not to be ad 
ministered hastily, 377 ; preceded 
by laying on of hands, 153 ; the 
cleric to receive no present from 
the baptized person, 157 ; newly 
baptized person not to be ordained 
priest, 377 ; whether baptism re 
moves the impedimenta, ordinis, 414; 
repetition of, forbidden, 477 ; to be 
in the name of the three Persons in 
the Holy Trinity, 478 ; not merely 
into the death of Christ, 478 ; by 
trine immersion, 478. 

Baptism of heretics (cf. Heretics). 

Baptismus clinicoruni, 229. 

Basle, Synod of, whether an oecu 
menical, 59. 

Beryllus of Bostra, 91. 

Bestiality, 215 ff. 

Betrothed woman, carried off, 211 ; 
may not be married by one who 
has seduced her sister, 221 f. 

Bigamy, 141 f., 189, 196, 218, 226. 

Bishop, may not exchange his diocese 
with another, 185, 195, 422, 423 ; 
must not receive a person excom 
municated by another bishop, 159, 
193, 196, 386 ; must not officiate in 
another bishop s diocese, 194 ; par 
ticularly, must not ordain, 196 ; 
nor yet ordain one from a strange 
diocese for his own, 423 ; may offer 
the sacrifice in a strange diocese, 
195 ; penance and the holy com 
munion in the bishop s power, 149 ; 
only in case of necessity in the 
priest s, 149 ; rule of Mcsea on the 
election and consecration of a 
bishop, 381 ; older rule, 195; his 
tory of episcopal elections, 382, 
384 ; no novice to be a bishop, 
377 ; the comprovincial bishops 
have the right to appoint a new 



bishop at a synod, 383 ; every new 
bishop must be ordained by .seven 
or three or more other bishops, 195, 
381 ; the metropolitan has the right 
of confirming the election of every 
bishop, 381, 383, 385, 396 ; more 
recently this right was transferred 
to the Pope, 386 ; a bishop rejected 
by a church without any fault of 
his own may retain his office of 
priest, 217 ; how schismatical 
bishops are to be treated on re 
turning to the Church, 352, 413. 

Bithynia, synod there in favour of 
the Arians, 258. 

Blastus, an Ebionite Quartodeciman, 
313. 

Body of Christ, without a human soul, 
238. 

Bostra, synod at, 91. 

Britain, its Easter festival, 330. 

Business, worldly, forbidden to clerics. 
460.; 



in Palestine, synod there 
on account of the Easter contro 
versy, 82; relation of this see to 
Jerusalem, 405, 408. 

Ccesarea in Cappadocia, recognised as 
supreme metropolitan (exarchal) 
diocese, 395. 

Calicem offerre and fienedicere, 427. 

Canon = ordo dericorum, 424. 

Canones apostolorum (see Apostolic 
Canons). 

Carthage, primacy of the bishop, 162, 
174; synod there under Agrippinus, 
86 ; Synod, A.D. 249, 92; A.D. 251, 
94; A.D. 252, 96; A.D. 255, 99; 
A.D. 256, 100. 

Catechumens, whether two or three 
classes of, 421 ; period of, lasted 
two years, 155 ; accelerated bap 
tism of, 142 ; in case of women 
with child, 226 ; punishment for 
sins, especially carnal sins of, 139, 
142, 225 ; punishment of lapsed, 
420; those who sacrificed to idols 
not to be ordained after baptism, 
211 ; negligent attendance of, at 
divine service, 156 ; receive laying 
on of hands before baptism, 152, 
153. 

Cathari = Novatians, 409. 

Cathedra prima, 162. 

Cecilian of Carthage, 174. 

Celibacy, one who becomes a cleric, 
being unmarried, must not marry, 
except a lector, 435 ; decision of the 
Synod of Elvira on celibacy, 150 ; 



INDEX. 



495 



Synod of Aries recommend it, 197 ; | 
whether a law on the subject was 
given at Nicsea, 380, 435 ; punish 
ment for the loss of celibacy by 
marriage or impurity, 223 ; deacons 
may make a condition at their or 
dination that they shall be allowed 
to marry, 210. 

Cemeteries, 150 f. ; women must not 
spend the night in, 151. 

Chalcedon, oecumenical synod there, by 
whom convoked, 11 ; who presided, 
31 ; lays its acts before the Pope 
for his confirmation, 446. 

Chalice may be administered by 
deacon, 427. 

Charioteers, their reception into the 
Church, 164, 187. 

Chorepiscopi, 17 f., 230; limitations 
of, 211 ; successors of the seventy 
disciples of Christ, 230 ; presence 
at synods, 17 f. 

Christians, have heathen tenants and 
slaves, 154 ; allow their fruits to be 
blessed by Jews, 158 ; may not eat 
and associate with Jews, 159 ; may 
not hold the office of flamen, 138 ; 
may not adorn heathen festivals, 
162 ; nor be present at heathen 
sacrifices, 163 ; must avoid all in 
tercourse with heathen, 155, 162. 

Christology of the Arians, and of 
Lucian of Antioch, 238. 

Church no pictures to be in churches, 
151 ; satires not to be placed in, 
159 ; in some churches only a dea 
con placed, without a priest, 170; a 
cleric not to go from one church to an 
other, 185, 195, 422, 423; negligent 
attendance at church punished, 
145 ; even in case of catechumens, 
156 ; church vessels not to be turned 
to private use, 487 ; church pro 
perty, security of, 214, 475 ; wax 
and oil of church not to be used 
by private persons, 487 ; offerings 
of fruit, etc., to the Church, 458- 
460 ; bishop may have private pro 
perty, 475. 

Cinerarius, 165 f. 

Cirta, synod at, 128. 

Clement of Alexandria on the Easter 
question, 312. 

Clerics, who might not become, 146, 
149, 169, 414; a neophyte might not, 
377, 378 ; nor one who had been 
guilty of mortal sin, 146, 149, 169, 
414 ; if he did, he must be deposed, 
414 ; nor one who had married a 
corrupta, 196 ; or whose wife had 



been guilty of adultery, 226 ; nor 
one who has emasculated himself, 
375 ; whether one formerly incon 
tinent could be received into the 
number of the clergy, 226, 227 ; 
clerics who have been guilty of 
carnal sins before their ordination 
can perform only a part of their 
duties, 226, 227 ; priests and bishops 
who have been guilty of a serious 
sin before, are to be deposed, 378, 

414 ; one who has received clinical 
baptism not to become a priest, 
227 ; freedmen whose masters are 
heathens, not to be clerics, 171 ; 
whether slaves may be ordained 
(see Slaves) ; one must be thirty 
years old before he is ordained 
priest, 227 ; no bishop must ordain 
one from a strange diocese, either 
for his own or for any other 
diocese, 196, 423 ; clerics ordained 
by traditores, 191 ; clerics must 
not change their churches, 185, 
195, 422, 423 ; are restrained, from 
merchandise, 145, 191 ; and from 
being guardians, 84 ; must receive 
no strange or doubtful women into 
their houses, 148, 379 ; must not 
live with a wife who has been an 
adulteress, 165, 226 ; punishment 
of the clergy for impurity, 145, 223 ; 
treatment of the clergy who became 
traditores or lapsi, 191, 201, 202, 

415 ; treatment of schismatical 
clerics who return to the Church, 
352, 411. 

Colluthus, 250. 

Comatus, 165 f. 

Commendatitise epistolse (see Epis- 
tolas). 

Communicatorise literse (see Epistolse). 

Communion, holy, he who does not 
partake must not sacrifice, 148 ; 
reception of, must be decided by 
the bishop, 149 ; only in cases of 
necessity by a priest or deacon, 149 ; 
its administration by the bishop, 
419 ; the usurpation of deacons in 
its administration, 427 ; it is the 
Body of Christ, 430 ; it must be re 
ceived by all who come into church, 
461, 462 ; especially by the clergy, 
461 ; as a sacrifice (see Sacrifice). 

Comprovincial bishops, their part in 
the election of a bishop, 383. 

Conciliabulum of the Donatists (A.D. 
312), 175. 

Concilium universale, or plenarium, 3. 

Concilia mixta, 5. 



496 



INDEX. 



Confirmation, right of, belonged to 
the metropolitan, 381, 384 ; laying 
on of hands in articulo mortis, 152, 
187 ; converts to be confirmed, 113, 
188 ; one baptized by a deacon to 
be confirmed by a bishop, 169. 

Const an tine the Great, becomes sole 
emperor, 259 ; takes part in the 
Arian controversy, 259 ; regards 
the matter at first superficially, 
260 ; sends Hosius to Alexandria, 
260 ; convokes the Synod of Nicsea, 
261, 268 ; his zeal for the opoouirio;, 
289 ; measures against the Arians 
after their condemnation by the 
Council of Nicsea, 295, 297. 

Constantinople, first svnod at, by 
whom convoked, ; who presided, 
35 ; second (Ecumenical Synod, by 
whom convoked, 13; who presided, 
31; third (Ecumenical Synod there, 
by whom convoked, 13 ; fourth, 30. 

Constance, Council of, whether oecu 
menical, 58. 

Converts, treatment of, 146, 188, 196. 

Council (see Synod). 

Corinth, synod there, on account of 
the Easter controversy, 83. 

Courtezan, heathen, converted, 156. 

Cyprian, S., 93 ff. ; his argument with 
reference to heretical baptism, 113. 

Cyril of Alexandria, his Easter table, 
329. 

DEACOX, one guilty of mortal sin 
could not be a, 169 ; or must after 
wards discharge the duty of one 
in minor orders, 228 ; deacons in 
churches where there are no priests, 
170; may baptize there, 170; may 
do nothing without the knowledge 
of the priest, 194 ; may not offer 
the sacrifice, but may offerre in 
another sense, 193, 427 ; may not 
administer the Eucharist to priests, 
427 ; must receive the holy Eucha 
rist after the bishop and the priests, 
427 ; must not sit among the priests, 
427 ; no more than seven deacons to 
be in one town, 230 ; may at their 
ordination make the condition that 
they shall be allowed to marry, 210. 

Denunciations, punishment of false, 
168, 169, 192. 

Diaconi lapsi, how to be treated, 202. 
(Compare Clerics.} 

Deaconesses, their ordination, 432. 

Dead, prayer and sacrifice for the, 
92 ; their souls disquieted by light 
ing of tapers at their graves, 150. 



Degrees of relationship, forbidden, 

142, 165, 222, 224. 
Diocesan synods, 4, 16. 
Dionysius the Great, of Alexandria, 

99, 103, 107, 117, 119 ; his doctrine 

of the Logos, 234 f. ; his Easter 

canon, 319. 

Dionysius of Rome, 234. 
Dionysius the Less, his Easter table, 

330 ; his collection of canons, 449. 
Divorce, 141, 142, 190, 196. 
Doctrines, history of, according to 

the Hegelian and the Catholic idea, 

233. 
Donatists, 128; origin of schism, 172; 

decision of Synod of Aries, 191 f. ; 

they appeal to the Emperor, 197 ; 

further history of the, 198. 
Dying, mildness towards the, 419. 

EASTER FESTIVAL, synods respecting, 
80; decision of Synod of Aries on the, 
184, 321 ; Synod of Nicrea on, 298, 
322 ; anciently, three ways of cele 
brating Easter : the Ebionitish, the 
Johannean, and the ordinary cus 
tom, 299, 306 ; their differences, 
300; home of Quartodecimans, 305; 
first Easter controversy between 
Polycarp and Anicetus, 309 ; second 
Easter controversy between Ebio 
nitish and orthodox Quartodeci 
mans, 310 ; Blastus, Ebionitish 
Quartodeciman at Home, 313 ; third 
Easter controversy between Victor 
and Poly crates, 313 ; astronomical 
question arises in third century, 
with reference to the equinox, 316 ; 
the Protopaschites, 321 ; the Easter 
canons, 318 ; even after Nicoea, 
irregularities in the, 328 ; Cyril s 
Easter table, 329 ; that of Victor of 
Aquitaine, 329, 445 ; that of Diony 
sius the Less, 330 ; British Easter 
custom, 330 ; since Charles the 
Great, uniformity in time of, 330 ; 
post-Nicene Quartodecimans, 332 ; 
Audians, 334 ; rule of Apostolic 
Canons, 460. 

Elvira, Synod of, 131 ; was it Nova- 
tian ? 134 ; its canons, 138. 

Emasculation, taught by the Vale- 
sians, 92 ; practised by many Chris 
tians, 376 ; forbidden at Niccea, 
376. 

Ephesus, synod at, on account of the 
Easter question, 81 ; (Ecumenical 
Synod of, 10, 33 ; metropolitan 
(exarchal) rights of the see of, con 
firmed at Nicasa, 395. 



INDEX. 



497 



Emperors, presence of, at synods, 25 ; 
whether at other than oecumenical 
synods,- 26 ; presence of their com 
missioners at synods, 26 ; whether 
they presided at synods, 28 ; con 
firmed decrees of synods, 42 ; the 
Donatists appealed to the Em 
peror in ecclesiastical matters, 178, 
180. 

Epistolae communicatorise and confes- 
soriae, 146, 189. 

Eucharist (see Holy Communion). 

Eunuchs, immoral connection of 
women with, 166 ; whether they 
could be clerics, 376, 466 ; punish 
ment of emasculation for clerics and 
laymen, 466. (Cf. Emasculation.) 

Eusebians, 285 ; their want of agree 
ment, 288. 

Eusebius of Csesarea, 246 ; proposes a 
creed at Nicfea, 288 ; his behaviour 
at Nicsea, 289. 

Eusebius of Nicomedia, on the side of 
Arius, 245 ; his doctrine, 245 ; his 
creed, 286 ; his behaviour at Nicsea, 
295 ; subscribes ofAoioutnos, instead of 

oftaoutrios, 295. 

Excommunicated, restoration of, in 
artlculo mortis, 149, 419 ; restored, 
must enter the fourth grade of peni 
tents, 419; one excommunicated by 
his own bishop, not to be restored 
by another, unless that bishop has 
died, 159, 193, 387; the provincial 
synod may inquire whether he has 
been rightly excommunicated, 387 ; 
intercourse with, forbidden, 462. 

Exucontians, 238, 251. 

FASTING, rules on, 146 ; not allowed 
on Sundays and feast-days, 147 ; 
Manichsean fasts, 213 ; fasting in 
Holy Week, 302 ; fasting in Lent, 
303 ; allowed on only one Saturday 
in the year, 484; all Saturdays fast- 
days, 147. 

Feasts, heathen, supported by Chris 
tians, 162. 

Fees at baptism, forbidden, 157. 

Felicissimus, deacon, 93. 

Felix of Aptunga, 174. 

Firmilian of Csesarea, 89, 90, 102. 

Flamines, punishment of Christians 
who took the office of, 139, 160. 

Flesh-meat not to be regarded as sin- 

^ ful, 213, 479. 

Food, laws of, in ancient Church, 479, 

^483. 

Freedmen, whose masters are heathen, 
not to be clerics, 171. 



GAUL, synods in, on account of Easter 
question, 81 ; pretended synod in, 
on account of Montanus, 83. 

Gelasius of Cyzicus, his history of the 
Synod of Nicsea, 263. 

Gladiatorial games, forbidden, and re 
garded as murder, 139. 

God, mother of, expression used even 
by Alexander of Alexandria, 252. 

Graves, lights upon, 150. 

Gregory in the Council of Nicsea, 267. 

Gregorian calendar, 331. 

Guardianship, forbidden to clergy, 92. 

HANDS, laying on of, different from 
ordination, 352, 411 ; catechumens 
receive, before baptism, 153. (Cf. 
Confirmation.) 

Heathens, feasts of, not to be shared 
in by Christians (cf. Communicatio 
in sacris). 

Heathenism, some Christians of early 
times stood in close relation with, 
138, 154, 160. 

Heraclea, recognised as metropolitan 
see of Thrace, 395. 

Heretical baptism, controversy re 
specting, in Asia Minor, 87 ; in 
Africa, 98 ; synods on account of, 
87, 98 ; valid in ancient Church, 
104 ; Tertullian s view on, 106 ; 
those who have received, on re 
turning to the Church, to undergo 
the two sacraments of penance and 
confirmation, 112 ; the ordinance 
of the Council of Aries on, 188 ; de 
cision of the Council of Nicsea on, 
430 ; Apostolical Canons pronounced 
invalid, 485. 

Heretical ordination, invalid, 485. 

Hierapolis, synod at, 78. 

Hippolytus, on paschal controversy, 
318 ; his Easter canon, 319. 

Hosius, presides at first (Ecumenical 
Synod at Nicsea, 39, 260, 281. 

Hypostasis, frequently identified in 
ancient times with Substance and 
Ousia, and even at Nicsea, 295. 

TCONIUM, synod at, 89. 

Idols, images of, he who breaks them 
and perishes in consequence, not to 
be considered a martyr, 163 ; that 
which is offered in sacrifice to, not 
to be received by Christians, 154 ; 
Christians not to be present at, 
sacrifices, 163. 

Incest with a step-daughter, 165. 

Infant baptism, 97. 

Infanticide, 164, 167, 220. 



2 I 



498 



INDEX. 



Informers, punished, 168 ; against 
the clergy, 169, 192. 

JACOB (or James), Bishop of Nisibis, 272. 

Jerusalem, destruction of, 404; settle 
ment of Christians in, 405; rebuild 
ing of ^Elia, 405 ; rights of the 
Church of, declared at Nicaea, 404 ; 
relation of the see of, to Ceesarea, 
405, 407 ; receives a portion of the 
patriarchate of Antioch, and be 
comes itself a patriarchal see, 408 ; 
synod at, about Easter, 82. 

Jews, bless fruits in Spain, 158; Chris 
tians to have no intercourse with, 
not to eat with, 159. (Cf. Communi- 
catio in sacris. ) 

Judith, whether the book of, was 
declared canonical at Niceea, 371. 

LAITY at councils, 18, 24. 

Lambesitanum, Concilium, 90. 

Laodicea, Easter controversy at, 310. 

Lapsi, treatment of, 93, 96, 138 ; 
synods respecting, ib. ; who yielded 
to physical constraint, 202, 209 ; 
different grades of, 203, 210 ; treat 
ment of those who fell under Lici- 
nius, 416 ; of those who entered 
military service under Licinius, 
417 ; punishment of catechumens 
who became lapsi, 420 ; how to 
treat fallen priests, 201 ; punish 
ment of traditores, 191 ; restoration 
of lapsi in articulo mortis, 149, 419 ; 
when restored, to enter the fourth 
grade of penitents, 420. 

Lateran Synod, the fifth, was it 
oecumenical ? 62. 

Lenocinium, punishment of, 142. 

Lent, fasting in, different in different 
parts of the ancient Church, 303 ; 
practice of Quartodecimans, 302 ; 
the whole of Lent a fast, 485. 

Leontius Castratus, Bishop of Antioch, 
376. 

Letters, of women, 171 ; of peace, 146, 
189. (Cf. Epistolae.) 

Libellus Synodicus, 78. 

Licinius, Emperor, 258 ; conquered, 
259 ; death of, 277 ; his persecution 
of Christians, 416. 

Lights on graves forbidden, 150. 

Literse Communicatorise (cf. Epistolse). 

Aoyo? iv^ia.6iro; and Iff0$aptxo< t 232. 

Logos, doctrine of (cf. Son of God). 
Lucian, martyr and priest at Antioch, 
his doctrine, 237 ; his creed, 238. 

MAGISTRATES (cf. Offices). 



Marcelliaus, Bishop of Rome, 127. 

Marinus, Bishop of Aries, 178. 

Marriage, with heathens, Jews, here 
tics, 144, 190 ; during the lifetime 
of first wife, forbidden, 141, 142, 
189, 196 ; a woman who has sinned 
with one, not to marry another, 
143 ; one who has seduced the sister 
of his betrothed, not to marry the 
latter, 222 ; marriage with a sister- 
in-law, a brother-in-law, and a 
step-daughter, forbidden, 164, 165, 
224, 465 ; second marriage, 218 ; 
clerics not to feast with those who 
marry a second time, 226 ; those 
who marry more than twice to be 
punished, 225 ; punishment of a 
second marriage, 218, 226 ; what 
kind of celibacy has value, and 
what is sinful, 479 ; a cleric who ab 
stains from matrimony because he 
thinks it impure, to be deposed, 479. 

Maternus, Bishop of Coin, 178, 181. 

Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, 130 ; 
origin of Meletian schism, 341 ; de 
cision of Nicene Council on this 
subject, 353 ; later history of Me- 
letians, 354. 

Melito, Bishop of Sardes, 310. 

Merchandise, relation of clergy to, 145. 

Mesopotamia, pretended synod in, 126. 

Metropolitan rights, in Africa, 162 ; 
in general, and the relation of the 
ecclesiastical to the civil division of 
provinces, 381 (cf. Provinces) ; the 
three provisions of the metropolitan 
arrangement confirmed at Niceea, 
385, 387 ; the metropolitan has the 
right of confirming the election of 
bishops, 396 ; even the Patriarch 
cannot withdraw this right from the 
metropolitan, 396 ; afterwards this 
right was transferred to the Pope. 386. 

Military service (cf. Service in War). 

Montanism, synods on account of, 77, 
89, 111. 

Murder, ecclesiastical punishment of, 
140, 220 ; murder and adultery con 
nected, 164, 220. 



, synod at, 116. 

Neocaesarea, synod at, 222. 

Nepos, Egyptian bishop and Millen- 
arian, 117. 

Nicsea, first (Ecumenical Synod 
at, by whom convoked, 91, 261, 
268 ; who presided, 36, 281 ; sizs 
and position of the city of, 270 ; 
genuine and pretended acts of the 
first Synod of, 262 ; authorities for 



INDEX. 



499 



the history of the Synod of, 264 ; 
number of members of Synod, 270 ; 
Latins present at, 271 ; most pro 
minent members, 271 ; uneducated 
members, 272 ; date of the Synod, 
274, 439 ; disputations at the Synod, 
277 ; whether heathen philosophers 
were present at the Synod, 278 ; 
arrival of the Emperor, and solemn 
opening of the Synod, 279 ; mutual, 
accusations of bishops, 282 ; manner 
of deliberation, 282 ; debates with 
the Eusebians, 285 ; on l^oao-iK? 
and epoouffto?, 287 ; Eusebius of 
Csesarea proposes a creed, 288 ; 
his behaviour at the Synod, 288 ; 
Nicene Creed, 293 ; who did and 
did not subscribe, 295 ; subscrip 
tions in the Acts, 296 ; punishment 
of Arius, 295, 297 ; decision of 
Easter question, 298 ; on the Me- 
letians, 341 ; number of Nicene 
canons, 355 ; canons of Sardica often 
interchanged with those of Nicosa, 
356 ; Arabic canons of Nic?ea, 359 ; 
how the opinion arose that the 
Synod of Niceea published more 
than twenty canons, 367 ; more 
pretended canons of Nicasa, 369 ; 
contents of Nicene canons, 375 : (1.) 
In reference to eunuchs, 375 ; (2. ) 
That no novice is to be ordained, 
377 ; (3. ) Against Syneisacti, 379 ; 
(4.) On the election and consecra 
tion of bishops, 381 ; (5.) On 
excommunication and provincial 
synods, 386; (6.) On the patri 
archates, 389 ; (7.) On the rights of 
Jerusalem to honour, 404 ; (8. ) On 
the Novatians, 409; (9, 10.) On 
unworthy^clerics, 414 ; (11-14.) On 
penance, 416 ; (15, 16.) Change of 
positions, 422 ; (17.) Against usury, 
424 ; (18.) Against the usurpation 
of deacons, 426 ; (19.) On the fol 
lowers of Paul of Samosata and 
heretical baptism, 430 ; (20.) On 
standing in prayer, 434 ; whether 
the sixth Nicene canon says any 
thing on the Papacy^ 394, 396 ; 
certainly in its Latin "form, 401 ; 
whether this notion was rejected 
by the fourth Oecumenical Synod, 
401 ; end of the Council of NicEea, 
439 ; confirmation by Emperor, 440 ; 
distinction of the Council, 440 ; 
whether it asked for the confirma 
tion of the Pope, 442, 445 ; spurious 
documents referring to the Nicene 
Council, 441 ; newly discovered 



Coptic documents, 294, 379, 382, 

388, 390. 
Nicsea, second OEcumenical Synod of, 

by whom convoked, 14 ; who pre 

sided at, 30. 
Nicolas, S., at the Synod of Nicasa, 

272. 

Nicomedia, pretended synod at, 260. 
Night, prayer at, in the cemeteries, 

151 ; women excluded from, 151. 
Noetus, 92. 
Novatian schism, origin of, 93 ; 

synods upon, 93 ; ordinance of 

Nicene Synod respecting, 410. 

OFFICE, ecclesiastical, not to be ex 

changed with another, 185, 195, 

196, 422, 423. 
Offices, public, forbidden to Chris 

tians, 139, 160, 161 j afterwards 

allowed, 187. 

Oftoivuffio;, 295. 

Of^ooutrio;, rejected by the Synod of 
Antioch of A.D. 269, 124 ; Diony- 
sius, Bishop of Alexandria, on this 
expression, 236 ; Arius rejects it, 
245 ; debates on it at Nicsea, 285 ; 
Zeal of the Emperor for it, 289; Euse 
bius of Cassarea wishes to avoid it, 
288 ; Synod of Nicsea adopts it into 
its creed, 287 ; some friends of 
Arius write of^onutno; for, 295 ; ridi 
culed by the partisans of Arius, 295. 

Ordination, whether that admini 
stered by a schismatical cleric must 
be repeated, 352, 411 ; no bishop 
may ordain a strange cleric for his 
diocese, 423 ; nor any cleric in a 
strange diocese, 196 ; chorepiscopi 
and town priests not to ordam, 
212 ; whether baptism removes the 
impedimenta ordinis, 414. (Cf. 
Clerics. ) 

Oriental Synod, on account of Cerdo, 
83 ; pretended, on account of 
Manes, 126. 

Origen, synods on account of, 87 ; 
gains over Beryllus of Bostra, 91 ; 
argues with the Hypnopsychites, 
91 ; defective in his doctrine of the 
Logos, 232. 

Osrhoene, synod on account of the 
Easter festival, 81, 82. 
lffiet (c/. uvo 



P^EDERASTIANS, not to receive the holy 
communion even in articulo mortis, 
167. 

Palestine, synod in, on account of 
Easter feast, 80, 82. 



500 



INDEX. 



Pantomimi, reception of, into the 
Church, 164, 187. 

Paphnutius, 272, 284, 435. 

Pascha, idea of, 307 ; -ra^a et.-iy.irra.- 
ffipov and fretvpMfjftn, 308. (</ 
Easter. ) 

Patriarchal rites, confirmed at Nicsea, 
389 ; when the title of Patriarch 
assumed, 391 ; which were the 
patriarchal or supreme metropoli 
tan sees, 395 ; in what the patri 
archal rights consisted, 393 ; dif 
ferent in different places, 394, 400; 
when Jerusalem became a patri 
archate, 408 ; Roman patriarchate 
embraces the whole West, 397 ; 
in some parts of the West, Rome 
has not full patriarchal rights, 401. 

Paul of Samosata, 118, 237 ; baptism 
of his followers invalid, 430 ; how 
to deal with the clergy of his party 
when they return to the Church, 430. 

Penance, only one, 411 ; of the lapsi, 
138 (cf. Lapsi) ; on account of 
murder, etc., 139; on account of 
impurity, bigamy, etc., 140 f., 149, 
164-168, 170 ; for prostitution of 
children, 142 ; for intercourse with 
heathenism, 154, 162 ; power of 
penance in hands of bishop, only 
in case of necessity allowed to priest 
or deacon, 149. 

Pentecost, during, people are to stand 
in prayer, 434 ; feast of, 155. 

Pergamum, pretended synod at, 83. 

Petavius, defence of, 233. 

Peter of Alexandria, his doctrine of 
the Logos, 237. 

Pictures, forbidden in churches, 151. 

Pierius, his doctrine of the Logos, 236. 

Pisa, synod at, whether oacuinenical, 
57. 

Pistus, Arian Bishop of Alexandria, 
246. 

Plays, scenic, 139, 164, 187. 

Polycarp, S., on Easter festival, 309. 

Pontus, synod at, 81, 82. 

Pope, convokes oecumenical councils, 
6 ; share of, in first eight oecumeni 
cal councils, 8 ; all later oacumeni- 
cal synods undeniably convoked by 
the Popes, 8, 15 ; Pope, or his 
legates, preside at cecumenical 
synods, 27 ; actually presided at 
most ancient ecumenical synods, 
28 ; confirmation of decisions of 
councils belongs to the Pope, 42, 
446 ; confirmed, in fact, the deci 
sions of first and fourth CEcumenical 
Synods, 425 ; relation of Pope to 



oecumenical synod, 48 ; whether 
the Synod of Nic?ea ordained any 
thing with reference to the primacy 
of the Church, 394, 396, 401 ; prima 
secies nonjudicatur a guoquam, 128 ; 
no universal ordinances promulgated 
without consent of Pope, 8, 446. 
Possessed, 148, 151. 
Prayer, at night, in cemeteries, 150 ; 
to be offered standing on Sundays 
and at Pentecost, 434. 
Priests, country, their functions, 229 ; 
when they may minister in towns, 
229 ; their celibacy (cf. Celibacy) ; 
not to ordain in towns, 212 ; must 
be respected by other clerics, 481 ; 
must maintain poor clerics, 481 ; 
negligent priests to be punished, 
481 ; must hold no separatist ser 
vice, 469. (Cf. Clerics.) 
Priests, heathen, Christians acting the 

part of, 138. 
Primacy (cf. Pope) ; ecclesiastical, in 

Africa, 162, 174. 
Privatus, a heretic, 90, 97. 
Prostitution, ecclesiastical, punish 
ment of, 143. 
Protopaschites, 321. 
Provincial divisions, origin and rela 
tion to civil, 381 ; Nicene Council 
decides that the ecclesiastical pro 
vince shall ordinarily be same as 
civil, 382 ; three subjects of provin 
cial arrangements, 384 ; division of 
provinces in Africa and Spain, 162 ; 
in Egypt, 389. 

Provincial Synods, to be held twice a 
year, 387. 

QUARTODECIMANS (cf. Easter). 

RAPTUS (cf. Virgins). 

Regiones suburbic arise, 398. 

Robber- Synod, 8, 42. 

Kome, the patriarchal rights of tins 
see confirmed at Nicsea, 394 ; patri 
archate of, extends over the whole 
West, 397 ; in some provinces of the 
West, Rome has not full patriarchal 
rights, 401 (cf. Pope) ; pretended 
synods at Rome in second century, 
83 ; on account of Origen, 88 ; synod 
at Rome (A.D. 251), 95 ; (about A.D. 
260), 118; (A.D. 331), 179. 

SABELLIUS, 118. 

Sabinus of Heraclea, 272. 

Sacrifice, Christian wqrship is a, 92, 
201, 227, 429; one who does not com 
municate, not to make offerings, 148. 



INDEX. 



501 



Sacrifices, heathen, Christians not to 
be spectators of, 163. 

Sardica, Synod of, whether oecume 
nical, 55. 

Satires not to be placed in churches, 
159. 

Saturday, fast on, 147 ; only one Sa 
turday in year to be a fast-day, 484. 

Secundus, Arian bishop, exiled, 295. 

Sedes prima, in Africa and Spain = 
metropolitan see, 102. 

Seleucia, pretended synod at, 85. 

Seuex, in Africa = metropolitan, 174. 

Service, divine, not to be left before 
the end ; all present at, to take part 
in prayer and in holy communion, 
461 ; private, in conventicles, for 
bidden, 469. 

Service in war, obligation to, 185 ; 
those who served under Licinius 
punished, 417 ; forbidden to the 
higher clergy, 490. 

Sicily, pretended synod in, 83. 

Sick, may be baptized and confirmed 
before the regular time, 142, 187. 

Simony, fees regarded as, 157 ; no one 
by, to become bishop, 469. 

Sin, one guilty of mortal, not to be 
made deacon, 169. (Cf. Clergy, 
Penance, Lapsi. ) 

Sins of thought, not punished by the 
Church, 225. 

Sinuessa, pretended synod at, 127. 

Slaves, treatment of, and care of 
Church for, 139 ; Christian masters 
not to provide an idolatrous service 
for heathen slaves, 154 ; slaves used 
for indulgence of lust, 166 ; not to 
be ordained without consent of mas 
ters, 490. 

Son of God, the prse- Arian doctrine 
of the Son of God, 231 ; that of 
Origen, 232, 239 ; that of Dionysius 
of Alexandria, 234 ; of Dionysius of 
Rome, 234 ; of Theognostus, Pierius, 
and Peter of Alexandria, 236 ; of 
Lucian of Antioch, 237 ; of Arius, 
239, 249, 251, 253 ; of Eusebius of 
Nicomedia, 245 ; the orthodox doc 
trine of the Logos of Bishop Alex 
ander of Alexandria, 251 ; how 
Arius misrepresents the orthodox 
doctrine, 252 ; Arius teaches that 
the Son is KVO/AOIO; to the Father, 
257 ; the Eusebians declare their 
doctrine of the Logos at Nicsea, 

286 ; the Fathers of Nicsea com 
pelled to express themselves care 
fully, 287 ; they select the oftaourios, 

287 ; doctrine of the Logos of Euse 



bius of Coesarea, 288 ; the Nicene 
doctrine, 289. 

Spadones (cf. Eunuchs). 

Spain, metropolitan divisions in, 162. 

Spiridion, Bishop of Cyprus, mem 
ber of the Synod of JNicaea, 272, 
284. 

Standing, on Sunday, in prayer, 434. 

State, office of, under what condi 
tions to be held by a Christian, 

, 187. 

Stephen, Pope, his part in controversy 
respecting heretical baptism, 99 ; 
whether he considered all heretical 
baptism as valid, 108. 

Step-daughter, marriage with, forbid 
den, 165. 

Strike, clergy not to, 468. 

Subintroductse mulieres, 148, 219, 379 ; 
Leontius emasculates himself, in 
order to live with a sublntroducta, 
376 ; wider meaning of, 380. 

Subordinationism, 234, 239. 

Suburbicarise regiones and ecclesise, 
398. 

Superpositio, 148. 

Superstition, with tapers, 150 ; Chris 
tians allowing their fruits to be 
blessed by Jews, 158. 

Synnada, synod at, 90. 

Synod, idea and origin of, 1 ; whether 
a divine or human institution their 
authority, 1, 2; most ancient synods, 
2, 77 ; different kinds of synods, 2 ; 
idea of an oecumenical synod, 3 ; 
reasons for holding oecumenical 
synods, 5 ; who convokes synods, 
6 ; who convoked, in fact, the first 
eight oecumenical synods, 8 ; who 
the later, 8, 15 ; members of synods, 
16 ; chorepiscopi as members, 17 ; 
laity at synods, 18, 24, 25 ; women 
at synods, 24 ; emperors and kings 
and their commissaries at synods, 
25 ; whether they have a right to 
be present at other than oecumenical 
synods, 26 ; doctors, abbots, titular 
bishops, etc., at synods, 21, 64 ; 
who has a vote at synods, 18, 19, 
23 ; who subscribes the acts, 20, 
25 ; secretaries and notaries of 
synods, 21 ; presidency of synods, 
27 ; who presided at the first eight 
oecumenical synods, 28 ; who pre 
sided at the Robber-Synod, 42 ; 
confirmation of decrees of synods 
by the Emperor, 42, 440 ; by the 
Pope, 44, 442, 446; relation of 
Pope to cecumenical synod, 49 ; in 
fallibility of the cecumenical synod, 



1 \ > 



02 



INDEX. 



52; appeal from Pope to oecume 
nical synod, 54 ; number of oecu 
menical synods, 54; uncontested and 
contested oecumenical synods, 55 ; 
order of precedence at synods, 64 ; 
solemnities at the opening of a 
synod, 65; manner of voting at 
synods, 66 ; manner of publication 
of decrees of synod, 67 ; collec 
tions of councils, 67 ; works on the 
history of synods, 67 ; provincial 
synods to be held twice a year 
387. 
Synodicus, libellus, 78. 

JSynoduS Ivlr^nv/ra,, 4. 



TAPERS, not to be lighted at graves, 

150. 

Taverns, clergy not to frequent, 480. 
Tertullian, on heretical baptism, 106. 
Theatre (see Plays). 
Theft of clergy, how punished, 467. 
Theodotus the tanner, 80. . 
Cheognis of Nicaea, 295, 297. 
Theognostus, his doctrine of the 

Logos, 236. 

Theonas, Arian bishop, 295. 
Traditores, 191 ; clerical, to be de 

posed, 191 ; ordination by, whether 

valid, 191. 
Travellers, must have letters of peace, 

463, 471 ; without such, to be 

relieved, but not received into 

communion, 471 ; support of, from 

church property, 475. 
Trull anum, 56. 

UNCHASTITY, punishment of, 140, 
141 ; of virgins dedicated to God, 
143, 218 ; of virgins in the world, 
143; of young people, 149, 218; of 
widows, 167 ; of clerics, 145, 223, 
467 ; of women with slaves, 165 ; 
with eunuchs, 166; with beasts, 
215 ; one guilty of unchastity not 
to be ordained, 149, 228 ; forgive 
ness of, after baptism, 149 ; pun 
ishment of parents who prostitute 



their daughters, 142 ; unchastitv 
coupled with infanticide, 220. 
tr t***raf tt , used in same sense as 
bubstance or Essence at Mcea, 



Usury, forbidden, 145, 190, 424, 476. 

VALESIANS, heretics, 92. 

Viaticum, 419. 

Victor, Pope, his part in the Easter 

controversy, 313. 
Victorius of Aquitaine, his -Easter 

cycle, 330, 443. 
Victorius, Eoman heretic, in the third 

century, 443. 
Vienne, the Synod of, in 1311, was it 

oecumenical? 56. 
Vigils in cemeteries, 150 ; forbidden 

to women, 151. 
Virgins, punishment of the errors of, 

143 ; of both sexes, 144, 149, 218 ; 

one who has taken a vow of vir 

ginity not to marry, 218 ; rape of, 

>* JL M. 

Virginity, what kind of value, and 
what sinful, 479. 

WEAPONS, use of, out of war, for- 

bidden, 185. 
Widows, punishment of, for carnal 

sins, 167. 

Wine, not sinful, 479. 
Withcraft, murder through, 140 ; ec 

clesiastical punishment of, 221. 
Witnesses, punishment of false, 168. 
Women, strange, in the houses of 

clerics, 148; at synods, 24; not to 

spend the night in cemeteries, 151 ; 

not to receive or send letters, 171 ; 

not to keep slaves for pleasure, 

165; with child to be baptized, 

226. 

ZOEGA edits Coptic fragments re 
ferring to the Council of Niccea, 
265. 

Zosimus, Pope, takes the canons cf 
Sardica for Nicene, 356. 



MURRAY AND GIBE, EDINBURGH, 

PRINTERS TO HER MAJKSTY s STATIONERY 



I feel satisfied that, if the whole is completed after the same manner, it will be 
the Commentary par excellence in the English Language. Indeed as a Commentary 
for popular use, I know nothing equal to it in any language. Rev. Professor 
Lindsay Alexander, D.D. 



In Four Volumes, imperial Svo, handsomely bound, price 18s. each, 

COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, 



WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS. 



EDITED BY PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. 



Volume I. 

THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. By PHILIP 
SCHAFF, D.D., and MATTHEW B. 
KIDDLE, D.D. 

Volume III. (Just Published.) 

ROMANS. By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., and 
MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D. 

CORINTHIANS. By Principal DAVID 

BROWN, D.D. 
GALATIANS. By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. 

EPHESIANS. By MATTHEW B. EIDDLE, 
D.D. 

PHILIPPIANS. By J. EAWSON LUMBY. 
D.D. 

COLOSSIANS, By MATTHEW B. EIDDLE, 
D.D. 

THESSALONIANS. By MARCUS DODS, 
D.D. 

TIMOTHY. By the Very Eev. Dean 
PLUMPTRE. 

TITUS. By J. OSWALD DYKES, D.D. 
PHILEMON. By J. RAWSON LUMBY, D.D. 



Volume II. 

ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. By W. MILLIGAN 
D.D., and W. F. MOULTON, D.D. 

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By the 
Very Eev. Dean HOWSON and Rev. 
Canon SPENCE. 



Volume IV. (Shortly.} 
HEBREWS. By JOSEPH ANGUS, D.D. 
JAMES. By PATON J. GLOAG, D.D. 

I. and II. PETER. By S. D. F. SALMOND, 
D.D. 

I., II., and III. JOHN. By WILLIAM B. 
POPE, D.D. 

JUDE. By JOSEPH ANGUS, D.D. 

REVELATION. By WILLIAM MILLIGAN. 
D.D. 



Maps and Plans Professor ARNOLD GUYOT. 
Illustrations W. M. THOMSON, D.D., Author of The Land and the Book. 



From the Right Rev. the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 

A useful, valuable, and instructive commentary. In all the interpretation is set forth 
with clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the volumes to the 
thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and reflects great credit on the 
publishers as well as the writers. 

From the Right Rev. the Bishop of Winchester. 

I have looked into this volume, and read several of the notes on crucial passages. 
They seem to me very well done, with great fairness, and with evident knowledge of 
the controversies concerning them. The illustrations are very good. I cannot doubt 
that the book will prove very valuable. 

. [Continued on next page. 



a 



T. and T. Claris Publications* 



From The Evangelical Magazine. 

The second volume has just been published of this really admirably work. . . . The 
reader is not perplexed with controversial exegesis, but he will find throughout a well 
considered exposition, of great value and importance. The names of the writers are a 
pledge for accurate scholarship, well considered translations, and ample acquaintance 
with the entire surroundings of the narrative which they here illustrate. 

From The Record. 

The first volume was warmly recommended in these columns soon after it was 
published, and we are glad to be able to give as favourable a testimony to the second 
volume. The commentators have given the results of their own researches in a simple 
style, with brevity, but with sufficient fulness ; and their exposition is, all through, 
eminently readable. The work is one which students of even considerable learning may 
read with interest and with profit. . . . The results of the most recent inquiries are 
given in a very able and scholarly manner. 

From The London Quarterly Review. 

4 The second volume lies before us, and cannot fail to be successful. We have care 
fully examined that part of the volume which is occupied with St. John of the Acts we 
shall speak by and by and elsewhere and think that a more honest, thorough, and, in 
some respects, perfect piece of work has not lately been given to the public. The two 
writers are tolerably well known ; and known as possessing precisely the qualities, 
severally and jointly, which this kind of labour demands. We may be sure that in them 
the highest Biblical scholarship, literary taste, and evangelical orthodoxy meet. There 
is something beautiful in their conjoint authorship, and in the account they give of it. 
The suppression of individuality is ethically graceful, and more than graceful. . . . We 
must needs make a digression in order to notice a very beautiful note ; one, indeed, that 
is more than simply beautiful, inasmuch as it throws a rich light on the coming dis 
course. ... It will be found, by one who reads on from this point, how invigorating a 
little introduction like this is. Drs. Milligan and Moulton abound in similar instances 
of insight into the hidden links between history and teaching. . . . The large and noble 
views which are propounded in this note are not usually found in commentaries, certainly 
not in " popular" commentaries. . . . The note of our two commentators on ver. 26 we 
may once more quote as a model in its dealing with a difficulty. Of this also we may 
say that it is the clearest, most finished, and most satisfactory note we have seen on the 
verse. . . . But we must lay down these most profitable volumes. We feel that the 
authors have laid us under a deep debt. Not long hence we hope to have their guidance 
in a study of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in St. John s Gospel. 

From The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine. 

This volume fully sustains the high character of its predecessor. The Introduction 
to St. John s Gospel is everything tbat could be desired. The exposition is quite as 
scholarly as it is popular. . . . We have some fine and masterly commenting. . . . The 
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles is the most interesting and popular exposition 
of that book we have yet met with. . . . The work, as a whole, is well worthy of the 
reputation of its learned authors. 

From The Aberdeen Free Press. 

The second volume of this most valuable commentary has now reached us. . . . From 
the names and position and reputation of the writers, we naturally expected a contribution 
to scientific exegesis of marked and outstanding value, and we have to say that we 
have not been disappointed. The work done is of a very high order indeed. No 
difficulty has been evaded. 






From Methodist New Connexion Magazine. 

The present volume, like its predecessor, is issued in a style which places it beyond 
criticism as regards external features. . . . For scholarly thoroughness the " Popular 
Commentary " is unsurpassed, if not unrivalled, by any similar work extant. 

From The Methodist Recorder. 

The thoroughness and conscientiousness with which the least details are discussed 
show that the work has been a labour of love, and where, as here, such love is united 
with complete knowledge the result is a model commentary. 



T. and T. Claris Publications. 



From Tlie Baptist Magazine. 

The second volume will do more than maintain the favourable impression created by 
he first. It possesses all the excellences of its predecessor, and has many others 
>eculiarly its own. 

From The Methodist. 

The notes are full of proofs of care and of scholarship, and put within the reach of the 
eaders of English many of the results of minute study of the original text. Though the 
vork is not designed primarily for homiletical purposes, yet there is in it, here and there, 
L rich suggestiveness which preachers will well know how to appreciate. 

From The Daily Review. 

We trust that this work will meet with that cordial reception at the hands of the 
Christian public which it so well deserves; . . . our readers cannot fail to see that 
t contains the results of the ripest scholarship of,; our own day, and that its 
ralue is not confined to the unlearned. It will prove serviceable to pastor, to Sabbath- 
scliool teacher, and to the artisan, who desires to be, as a scribe, instructed unto the 
[ingdom. We can only express the hope that, among all these classes, the " Popular 
Commentary on the New Testament " will secure a circulation commensurate with its 
jreat and numerous merits. 

From The Catholic Presbyterian. 

The "Popular Commentary on the New Testament" is a book that attracts at first 
light handsome, substantial, well printed, well illustrated ; and the more it is examined 
he more it appears adapted to its purpose. That purpose is to present to ordinary 
eaders, in a simple form, the best results of recent scholarship on all expository and 
llustrative matters connected with the New Testament, and at the same time to bring 
>ut the great practical and spiritual lessons of the various books. The most competent 
cholars and trustworthy expositors are responsible for this work, on which, it is evident, 
LO pains have been spared. 

From The Clergyman s Magazine. 

The commentary with which we have been most impressed and delighted is that 
vhich is called the "Popular Commentary," of which the second volume is now before 
is. This immense volume is full of illustrations and maps. It is profound, no less than 
>opular; we have all the results of a very extensive and exact scholarship ; the con- 
ilusions arrived at present in a simplified form the result of most careful processes. In 
espect to copiousness, scholarship, careful exegesis, and abundant illustration, the work 
eaves nothing to be desiderated. 

From The Spectator. 

A valuable addition to the already copious library of exegesis which is now at the 
;ommand of the English student, or reader of the Bible. 

From The American Presbyterian Review. 

Nothing has been spared to make this beautiful volume attractive and useful. While 
ts design, which is to put English readers in possession of the latest results of scholar - 
ihip, excludes much that is technical, the standing of the authors renders their work of 
tiniest as much value to students of the original as if it were expressly intended for 
hem. . . . With all these assurances of accuracy, the volume presents a rare combination 
>f attractions. . . . Throughout the commentary the scholarship and reverent treat- 
nent are eminently characteristic. This second volume in both parts cannot fail to 
ittract, and to prove satisfactory to all classes of readers, and will awaken expectation 
>f the remainder of the series. 

From The Guardian. 

There are few, if any, better helps for the study of the Acts than those contained in 
his volume, and the Dean of Chester s contributions give it a special usefulness and 
ralue. 

From The Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette. 

This most valuable commentary. . . . The notes strike us as wonderfully full. 
Che text is beautifully and clearly printed, and footnotes supply aliter readings, or more 
Accurate renderings of the original. A peculiar speciality in this commentary are the 
woodcuts and steel engravings which illustrate the sacred narrative, and which are 
jeautifully executed. We must add, however, that the fairness of. the criticism, as far 
is we have been able to judge of it by some crucial tests, and the strong desire mani- 
ested to be impartial, goes more to recommend the commentary to our judgment than 
,ny other feature in it. 

[Continued on next page. 



T. and T. Claris Publications. 



From the Very Rev. Edward Bickersteth, D.D., Dean of Lichfield and 

Prolocutor of Canterbury. 

I have been looking into this volume, and I am much struck with the fulness and 
accuracy of the annotations, wherever I have examined them, as well as with the 
general excellence of the work. 

From Rev. W. G. T. Shedd, D.D. (Presbyterian), Professor in Union Theological 

Seminary, New York. 

1 Having examined the volume with some care, it impresses me as admirably adapted 
to the class for whom it is prepared, and calculated to promote a popular understanding 
of the Word of God. It selects the important words and clauses, and explains them 
concisely yet thoroughly. It grapples with the difficult questions, and answers them 
generally in a satisfactory manner. The illustrations are well chosen, and the style in 
which the book is made is very attractive. 

From The General Baptist Magazine. 

As an exposition it is lucid and full, informing and suggestive, marked by solid 
scholarship and glowing devotion. Nowhere are difficulties shirked, and all the crucial 
passages we have tested and they are many are handled in a most felicitous and 
effective way. Altogether it is, far out of sight, the best commentary for the home, the 
school, and for popular use generally, in existence. 

From The Primitive Methodist Magazine. 

When the second volume appeared we gave the work a somewhat lengthy notice, 
speaking in high terms of its qualities, and warmly recommending it to our readers. 
We had not, indeed, fallen in with any work of the kind which impressed us more 
favourably, or seemed in most respects to come nearer to our idea of what a popular 
commentary should be. The favourable opinion then formed, has decidedly improved 
upon a more intimate acquaintance with the work. In our Biblical readings we have 
often had occasion to consult it, and seldom, if ever, without obtaining substantial help ; 
more than once indeed the help has been such as to evoke our warmest gratitude. . . . 
It would be difficult, we imagine, to bring together an equal number of men better 
qualified for the important work assigned them ; and we can with confidence say they 
have performed it in a manner worthy of their high reputation. Our estimate of the 
work may be judged by the fact, that on being asked the other day by some young 
missionaries what commentary we would recommend, we said in reply, by all means 
get Schaff s Commentary, now being published by the Messrs. Clark of Edinburgh. 

From The Christian Progress. 

The results of modern scholarship are presented in a simple and intelligible form : 
and we think that many will be thankful to the publishers for such a combination of 
scholarly information and exegesis, with simplicity and clearness of expression. 

From The North British Daily Mail. 

There is no crudeness, no superficiality, no sign of hasty composition. The whole 
bears the mark of patient, careful, earnest work. There is no parade of learning, but 
there is abundant evidence of admirable scholarship, while there is also a keen and clear 
insight into the meaning of the inspired writers. 

From The Homilist. 

The explanations are chiefly exegetical, but some are doctrinal and practical. The 
results of extensive reading and very careful thought are given in brief but clear 
language. . . . The work is chiefly intended for English readers, but the most scholarly 
may derive pleasure and profit from it. 



T. and T. Claris Publications. 



Just published, Second Edition, in One Volume, 8vo, price 12s., 

FINAL CAUSES. 

BY PAUL JANET, Member of the Institute, Paris. 
from tlje latest dfrend) <tfttton fcg OTilltam &fflecfe, 33 



CONTENTS. PRELIMINARY CHAPTER The Problem. BOOK I. The Law of 
Finality. BOOK II. The First Cause of Finality. APPENDIX. 

This very learned, accurate, and, -within its prescribed limits, exhaustive work. . . . 
The book as a whole abounds in matter of the highest interest, and is a model of learn 
ing and judicious treatment. Guardian, 

Illustrated and defended with an ability and learning which must command the 
reader s admiration. Dublin Review. 

A great contribution to the literature of this subject. M. Janet has mastered the 
conditions of the problem, is at home in the literature of science and philosophy, and has 
that faculty of felicitous expression which makes French books of the highest class such 
delightful reading ; ... in clearness, vigour, and depth it has been seldom equalled, and 
more seldom excelled, in philosophical literature. Spectator. 

A wealth of scientific knowledge and a logical acumen which will win the admiration 
of every reader. Church Quarterly Revew. 

Both on the physical and on the metaphysical side the work is well worth studying. 
[t is the best recent work on a controversy which, if it has not yet found its way to 
:>ur pulpits, is keenly discussed in all educated circles. Clergyman s Magazine. 

The book is a valuable addition to the permanent literature on this great subject, and 
ye welcome its appearance in an English dress, as supplying a want in the philo 
sophical thought of the day regarding natural theology. British Quarterly Review. 

1 M. Janet has done his work with a sustained power, a logical acuteness, and an 
jxtensive knowledge of many provinces of science which is worthy of all praise and 
,hanks. Literary Churchman. 

* One of those exhaustive pieces of reasoning, which go thoroughly to prove the validity 
>f the view of Final Causes which the Author has adopted. BeWs Weekly Messenger. 

1 One of the most important contributions of late years made to European literature. _ 
English Independent. 

The style of this distinguished essayist throughout is singularly philosophical. He 
s always calm and cool, eminently analytic and painstaking, yet often throwing ou 
.ew and striking views of the subject without the slightest parade. Tablet. 

This is perhaps the most exhaustive book that has been written on a subject with 
all deep thinkers have been more or less exercised. English Churchman. 



7". and T. Clark s Publications. 



THE CUNNINGHAM LECTURES. 

PUBLISHED BY 

T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH. 

SECOND SERIES. 

In demy 8vo, price 10s. Qd., 

THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION: 

AN OUTLINE OF ITS HISTORY IN THE CHUECH, 

AND OF 

ITS EXPOSITION FROM SCRIPTURE, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
RECENT ATTACKS ON THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMATION. 

BY JAMES BUCHANAN, D.D., LL.D., 

DIVINITY PROFESSOR, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. 

THIRD SERIES. 

In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6e?., 

THE REVELATION OF LAW IN SCRIPTURE, 

CONSIDERED WITH RESPECT BOTH TO ITS OWN NATURE AND 
TO ITS RELATIVE PLACE IN SUCCESSIVE DISPENSATIONS. 

BY PATRICK FAIEBAIRN, D.D., 

PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW. 



FIFTH SERIES. 

In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6c?., 

DELIVERY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN 

DOCTRINE. 

BY ROBERT RAINY, D.D., 

PRINCIPAL OF AND PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND CHURCH HISTORY 
IN THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. 



SIXTH SERIES. 

In one Volume, 8i o, price 

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST 

IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND OFFICIAL ASPECTS. 
BY ALEXANDER B. BRUCE, D.D., 

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW. 

SEVENTH SERIES. 

In one Volume, 8vo, price 105. 6c?., 

THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF MAN, 

BY JOHN LAIDLAW, D.D., 

PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. 

NINTH SERIES. 

In one Volume, 8vo, price 9s., 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

BY GEORGE SMEATON, D.D., 

PROFESSOR OF EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. 




x